Poll: Any more impeachment suprises coming?

[Watermelon]

I am talking about the HOUSE proceedings.

If you did you would have seen Nadler constantly shutting down Republicans when they were asking questions of witnesses, and you would know that Nadler also disallowed the witnesses that the Republicans wanted to call, like the Whistleblower, Hunter and Joe Biden, etc. They made sure the impeachment proceedings were as one sided as they possibly could. But now that it is in the Senate, they are whining how unfair the Senate is to do the very same thing they did.

[Sparko]

And the great majority that watched disagree with you and want to see witnesses and documentary evidence in the trial. A grand Jury, which is what a House impeachment actually is doesn't need to prove guilt, doesn't need all the evidence, they merely have to decide if there is enough evidence to indict, or take it to trial. To deny any new evidence without cause at trial is obstruction of Justice. I would ask why it is that you people don't want to see it? But we already know the answer to that, don't we?

Impeachment isn't actually a Grand Jury, Jimmy. It may be somewhat analogous in some ways, but it isn't. It has to prove guilt based on evidence. Otherwise Presidents would just be impeached left and right because congress didn't like what they did. Once they have concluded the President is guilty then they have to convince the Senate at the trial. If both houses agree, the President is removed. They do need to have all the evidence before going to the Senate trial. Just like in any other trial. The prosecutor can't just use the trial as the investigation. Can you imagine a criminal trial where the prosecutor says, "Well we don't have any real evidence...YET, but we expect to find some during the trial" - the case would be tossed out.

[DivineOb]

I don't think this counts as a surprise but Trump just confessed again to obstructing Congress. Expect to see this clip or his words show up as evidence.

https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/st...81403120644103

"Honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material."

[JimL]

Impeachment isn't actually a Grand Jury, Jimmy. It may be somewhat analogous in some ways, but it isn't. It has to prove guilt based on evidence. Otherwise Presidents would just be impeached left and right because congress didn't like what they did. Once they have concluded the President is guilty then they have to convince the Senate at the trial. If both houses agree, the President is removed. They do need to have all the evidence before going to the Senate trial. Just like in any other trial. The prosecutor can't just use the trial as the investigation. Can you imagine a criminal trial where the prosecutor says, "Well we don't have any real evidence...YET, but we expect to find some during the trial" - the case would be tossed out.

Wrong, it's a perfect analogy. Not only that, but the reason there were few witnesses on the republican side was because the president chose to block them from testifying. You would think, if he was innocent that is, that the president would want to submit documentary evidence and direct witnesses to testify. But those are his witnesses, and the documentary evidence of his innocence are in his possession, and it was himself who blocked it. That should tell you something, and I'm sure that it does.

[Sparko]

Devon Archer, former board member of Burisma Holdings. Multiple Democrat
witnesses in closed-door testimony explained that Ukrainian energy company Burisma
has a reputation in Ukraine for corruption. Mr. Archer is Hunter Biden's long-term
business partner and served as a board member of Burisma Holdings with Mr. Biden.
Mr. Archer's firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist the American public in
understanding 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.

2. Hunter Biden, former board member of Burisma Holdings. As stated previously,
Burisma has a reputation in Ukraine for corruption. According to public reporting,
Burisma recruited Mr. Biden to its board to improve its public image at a time when Mr.
Biden's father, Vice President Joe Biden, was the Obama Administration's point person
for Ukraine policy. 8 Mr. Biden reportedly received $50,000 a month for his presence on
Burisma's board.9 Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testified that he raised
concerns in 2015 to Vice President Biden's office about the appearance of a conflict of
interest stemming from Mr. Biden's position on Burisma's board. Ambassador Marie
Y ovanovitch testified that the Obama State Department prepared her to address Mr.
Bi den's position on Burisma during her confirmation hearing to be ambassador to
Ukraine. As with Mr. Archer, Mr. Biden's firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist
the American public in understanding 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.

3. Alexandra Chalupa, former Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer. During
the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Alexandra Chalupa, a former DNC staffer and
contractor, worked with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C. to try and get
political dirt on then-candidate Trump's campaign.10 She has admitted to providing anti-
Trump dirt to the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, and to discussing such dirt with
then-Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States Valeriy Chaly. Given President
Trump's documented belief that the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election
to oppose his candidacy, which forms the basis for a reasonable desire for Ukraine to
investigate the circumstances surrounding the election and any potential Ukrainian
involvement, Ms. Chalupa is a prime fact witness who can assist Congress and the
American public in better understanding the facts and circumstances surrounding
Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.

4. David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. The three committees
interviewed Under Secretary Hale on November 6, 2019. Under Secretary Hale has
direct knowledge of U.S. government policy with respect to foreign assistance and
foreign assistance review, which is critical to informing the American public's
understanding of President Trump's posture on such matters. Given Under Secretary
Hale's firsthand knowledge of events preceding and surrounding Ambassador
Yovanovitch's recall from Ukraine, as well as Under Secretary Hale's communications
with Ambassador Taylor regarding Ukraine matters, the American people deserve to hear
from Under Secretary Hale.

5. Tim Morrison, former Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on the
National Security Council (NSC), to testify on the same panel as Lt. Col. Alexander
Vindman, assuming you request Lt. Col. Vindman to testify. The three committees
conducted a deposition of Mr. Morrison on October 31, 2019. You have yet to release
Mr. Morrison's transcript; however, Mr. Morrison was one of the few witnesses who
listened on the President's July 25 phone call and subsequently dealt with matters on the
NSC related to U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. If you intend to call Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman, who worked for Mr. Morrison, to publicly testify, the minority
requests Mr. Morrison sit on the same panel as Mr. Vindrnan.

6. Nellie Ohr, former contractor for opposition research firm Fusion GPS. In a 2018
interview with the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, Ms. Ohr stated that,
during her work with Fusion GPS that ultimately assisted in the production of the Steele
Dossier-comprising false allegations against then-candidate Trump--Fusion GPS used
information from sources in Ukraine, including Serhiy Leshchenko who recently lost his
post from the Ukrainian parliament. 11 Given President Trump's documented belief that
the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election to oppose his candidacy, which
forms the basis for a reasonable desire for Ukraine to investigate the circumstances
surrounding the election and any potential Ukrainian involvement, Ms. Ohr is a prime
fact witness who can assist Congress and the American public in better understanding the
facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 20 I 6 election.

7. Ambassador Kurt Volker, former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine
Negotiations, to testify on the same panel as Ambassador William Taylor and
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent on Wednesday, November 13,
2019. The three committees conducted a transcribed interview of Ambassador Volker on
October 2, 2019 and you subsequently released the transcript of the interview on
November 5, 2019. Given Ambassador Volker's role as a primary interlocutor and
trusted confidant of the Ukrainian government, as well as his firsthand knowledge of the
circumstances surrounding Ukraine, to include discussions with Mayor Rudy Giuliani,
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Ambassador William Taylor, and others, the American
people deserve to hear from Ambassador Volker in public on the same panel as
Ambassador Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kent.

8. The anonymous whistleblower whose secondhand complaint initiated the
Democrats' "impeachment inquiry." Because President Trump should be afforded an
opportunity to confront his accusers, the anonymous whistleblower should testify. In
addition, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reported that the
whistleblower had a bias against President Trump and public reports indicate that the
whistleblower worked closely with Vice President Biden. 12 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 had gathered and how that treatment of classified
information may have led to the false narrative being perpetrated by the Democrats
during this process.

9. All individuals relied upon by the anonymous whistleblower in drafting his or her
secondhand complaint. In the whistleblower's complaint, the whistleblower suggests
that he or she received accounts of President Trump's July 25 phone call with President
Zelensky and associated information from "more than half a dozen" sources. 13 These
sources provided information that does not match the closed-door testimony from
witnesses, particularly as it relates to whether the President actually conditioned a faceto-
face visit or U.S. military assistance on opening an investigation into the President's
political rivals. The whistleblower's complaint alleged that most, if not all, of these
individuals had firsthand information related to the whistleblower' s claims, making their
testimony particularly relevant to the American people.

We expect that you will call each of the witnesses listed above to ensure that the
Democrats' "impeachment inquiry" treats the President with fairness, as promised by Speaker
Pelosi. Because the Democrats' resolution unfairly restricts Minority rights and because you
have provided no information about which witnesses you may invite to testify at future hearings
not yet scheduled, we reserve our right to request additional witnesses, if necessary, as you
announce additional hearings. Your failure to fulfill Minority witness requests shall constitute
evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.

PDF: https://www.scribd.com/document/4341...hment-hearings

[Sparko]

Wrong, it's a perfect analogy. Not only that, but the reason there were few witnesses on the republican side was because the president chose to block them from testifying. You would think, if he was innocent that is, that the president would want to submit documentary evidence and direct witnesses to testify. But those are his witnesses, and the documentary evidence of his innocence are in his possession, and it was himself who blocked it. That should tell you something, and I'm sure that it does.

No jim, it's not like a Grand Jury. A Grand Jury presents evidence gathered by police AFTER their investigation to a group of people to see if it is sufficient to go to trial. The impeachment includes the evidence gathering and investigation, where in a Grand Jury it is already there. Also in a Grand Jury you have 6 people who are totally ignorant of the case. In an impeachment you are trying to convince two parties consisting of hundreds of people who already know about the case.

As far as the President cooperating with the sham, why should he? He already knew that it was a kangaroo court because the democrats have been screaming "Impeach Trump" since say one of his Presidency. Why would he believe they would give him a fair hearing? Why cooperate with a rogue congress?

[DivineOb]

As far as the President cooperating with the sham, why should he? He already knew that it was a kangaroo court because the democrats have been screaming "Impeach Trump" since say one of his Presidency. Why would he believe they would give him a fair hearing? Why cooperate with a rogue congress?

Clinton cooperated.

[One Bad Pig]

Clinton cooperated.

[DivineOb]

Am I mistaken in that regard? How so?

Even Nixon can be said to have cooperated when compared to Trump's behavior.

[One Bad Pig]

Am I mistaken in that regard? How so?

Even Nixon can be said to have cooperated when compared to Trump's behavior.

Congress: "We'd like to see these documents."
Clintons: "What documents?"
<judicial arm-twisting follows>
Clintons: "Oh, look what we found on our coffee table!"

[Watermelon]

Devon Archer, former board member of Burisma Holdings. Multiple Democrat
witnesses in closed-door testimony explained that Ukrainian energy company Burisma
has a reputation in Ukraine for corruption. Mr. Archer is Hunter Biden's long-term
business partner and served as a board member of Burisma Holdings with Mr. Biden.
Mr. Archer's firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist the American public in
understanding 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.

2. Hunter Biden, former board member of Burisma Holdings. As stated previously,
Burisma has a reputation in Ukraine for corruption. According to public reporting,
Burisma recruited Mr. Biden to its board to improve its public image at a time when Mr.
Biden's father, Vice President Joe Biden, was the Obama Administration's point person
for Ukraine policy. 8 Mr. Biden reportedly received $50,000 a month for his presence on
Burisma's board.9 Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testified that he raised
concerns in 2015 to Vice President Biden's office about the appearance of a conflict of
interest stemming from Mr. Biden's position on Burisma's board. Ambassador Marie
Y ovanovitch testified that the Obama State Department prepared her to address Mr.
Bi den's position on Burisma during her confirmation hearing to be ambassador to
Ukraine. As with Mr. Archer, Mr. Biden's firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist
the American public in understanding 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.

3. Alexandra Chalupa, former Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer. During
the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Alexandra Chalupa, a former DNC staffer and
contractor, worked with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C. to try and get
political dirt on then-candidate Trump's campaign.10 She has admitted to providing anti-
Trump dirt to the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, and to discussing such dirt with
then-Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States Valeriy Chaly. Given President
Trump's documented belief that the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election
to oppose his candidacy, which forms the basis for a reasonable desire for Ukraine to
investigate the circumstances surrounding the election and any potential Ukrainian
involvement, Ms. Chalupa is a prime fact witness who can assist Congress and the
American public in better understanding the facts and circumstances surrounding
Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.

4. David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. The three committees
interviewed Under Secretary Hale on November 6, 2019. Under Secretary Hale has
direct knowledge of U.S. government policy with respect to foreign assistance and
foreign assistance review, which is critical to informing the American public's
understanding of President Trump's posture on such matters. Given Under Secretary
Hale's firsthand knowledge of events preceding and surrounding Ambassador
Yovanovitch's recall from Ukraine, as well as Under Secretary Hale's communications
with Ambassador Taylor regarding Ukraine matters, the American people deserve to hear
from Under Secretary Hale.

5. Tim Morrison, former Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on the
National Security Council (NSC), to testify on the same panel as Lt. Col. Alexander
Vindman, assuming you request Lt. Col. Vindman to testify. The three committees
conducted a deposition of Mr. Morrison on October 31, 2019. You have yet to release
Mr. Morrison's transcript; however, Mr. Morrison was one of the few witnesses who
listened on the President's July 25 phone call and subsequently dealt with matters on the
NSC related to U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. If you intend to call Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman, who worked for Mr. Morrison, to publicly testify, the minority
requests Mr. Morrison sit on the same panel as Mr. Vindrnan.

6. Nellie Ohr, former contractor for opposition research firm Fusion GPS. In a 2018
interview with the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, Ms. Ohr stated that,
during her work with Fusion GPS that ultimately assisted in the production of the Steele
Dossier-comprising false allegations against then-candidate Trump--Fusion GPS used
information from sources in Ukraine, including Serhiy Leshchenko who recently lost his
post from the Ukrainian parliament. 11 Given President Trump's documented belief that
the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election to oppose his candidacy, which
forms the basis for a reasonable desire for Ukraine to investigate the circumstances
surrounding the election and any potential Ukrainian involvement, Ms. Ohr is a prime
fact witness who can assist Congress and the American public in better understanding the
facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 20 I 6 election.

7. Ambassador Kurt Volker, former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine
Negotiations, to testify on the same panel as Ambassador William Taylor and
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent on Wednesday, November 13,
2019. The three committees conducted a transcribed interview of Ambassador Volker on
October 2, 2019 and you subsequently released the transcript of the interview on
November 5, 2019. Given Ambassador Volker's role as a primary interlocutor and
trusted confidant of the Ukrainian government, as well as his firsthand knowledge of the
circumstances surrounding Ukraine, to include discussions with Mayor Rudy Giuliani,
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Ambassador William Taylor, and others, the American
people deserve to hear from Ambassador Volker in public on the same panel as
Ambassador Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kent.

8. The anonymous whistleblower whose secondhand complaint initiated the
Democrats' "impeachment inquiry." Because President Trump should be afforded an
opportunity to confront his accusers, the anonymous whistleblower should testify. In
addition, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reported that the
whistleblower had a bias against President Trump and public reports indicate that the
whistleblower worked closely with Vice President Biden. 12 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 had gathered and how that treatment of classified
information may have led to the false narrative being perpetrated by the Democrats
during this process.

9. All individuals relied upon by the anonymous whistleblower in drafting his or her
secondhand complaint. In the whistleblower's complaint, the whistleblower suggests
that he or she received accounts of President Trump's July 25 phone call with President
Zelensky and associated information from "more than half a dozen" sources. 13 These
sources provided information that does not match the closed-door testimony from
witnesses, particularly as it relates to whether the President actually conditioned a faceto-
face visit or U.S. military assistance on opening an investigation into the President's
political rivals. The whistleblower's complaint alleged that most, if not all, of these
individuals had firsthand information related to the whistleblower' s claims, making their
testimony particularly relevant to the American people.

We expect that you will call each of the witnesses listed above to ensure that the
Democrats' "impeachment inquiry" treats the President with fairness, as promised by Speaker
Pelosi. Because the Democrats' resolution unfairly restricts Minority rights and because you
have provided no information about which witnesses you may invite to testify at future hearings
not yet scheduled, we reserve our right to request additional witnesses, if necessary, as you
announce additional hearings. Your failure to fulfill Minority witness requests shall constitute
evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.

PDF: https://www.scribd.com/document/4341...hment-hearings

[DivineOb]

Congress: "We'd like to see these documents."
Clintons: "What documents?"
<judicial arm-twisting follows>
Clintons: "Oh, look what we found on our coffee table!"

I'm trying to find some source which breaks down what you're saying more clearly but haven't been able to so far. Not saying it's not true. Can you provide a source talking about Clinton's response to documents subpoenaed for his impeachment?

[Sparko]

So who were the 3 witnesses they allowed? I know Volker was one.

Also, if the police could show that "Hunter" was a dangerous drug dealer and that their suspicions were indeed reasonable, then that would show their actions justified. So he would be a relevant witness.

But regardless, if the Republicans wanted to waste time with a non-relevant witness that should be up to them, not Nadler. The Dems called a lot of non-relevant witnesses who had NO direct knowledge of Trump's call or motivations.

[Watermelon]

So who were the 3 witnesses they allowed? I know Volker was one.

Also, if the police could show that "Hunter" was a dangerous drug dealer and that their suspicions were indeed reasonable, then that would show their actions justified. So he would be a relevant witness.

But regardless, if the Republicans wanted to waste time with a non-relevant witness that should be up to them, not Nadler. The Dems called a lot of non-relevant witnesses who had NO direct knowledge of Trump's call or motivations.

[Sparko]

Tim Morrison and David Hale.

If new evidence is required to validate the actions then it means the justification for those actions were insufficient.

New evidence yes, but confirmation of evidence they already have, no. For instance they could question him about his whereabouts on such and such night to confirm evidence they had that he was dealing drugs.




Well that was a pretty off the wall example you came up with. Even if he was a dangerous drug dealer, they wouldn't bust down a door with guns blazing. If they did, they would be rightfully charged themselves with manslaughter even if he was a dangerous drug dealer.