The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Report Ignores ‘Expert’ Witnesses
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/ ... port-ignores-expert-witnesses/
Published: Dec 7, 2019
Author: Joel B. Pollak
Post Date: 2019-12-08 11:05:10 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 3595
Comments: 14
House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Report Ignores ‘Expert’ Witnesses
Joel B. Pollak
Breitbart
7 Dec 2019
The House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment report Saturday on the constitutional and legal grounds for impeachment failed to cite any of the testimony from the “expert” witnesses who testified on Wednesday.
The report, signed by 20 members of the Democratic majority staff, appears to have been written in advance of that hearing. It was also prepared in advance of any evidentiary hearings in the committee, which are scheduled to begin Monday.
The report includes a caveat that its view are those of the staff, not the committee’s elected members.
One witness, University of North Carolina Law School professor Michael Gerhardt, is cited in the report, but the references are to his prior publications, not to his testimony in the hearing with two other Democratic witnesses.
Because it ignores the witnesses, notably the sole Republican-called witness, George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley (who is not, himself, a Republican), it fails to address the arguments they raised.
For example, the report argues that President Donald Trump can be impeached for “obstruction of Congress” for turning to the courts to prevent certain witnesses and documents from being provided to the House investigation.
As Turley argued on Wednesday:
I can’t emphasize this enough, and I’ll say it just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a “high crime and misdemeanor” out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing. We have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches. And what comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy.
The report fails to address that, and other objections.
As Breitbart News has noted, the report includes many legally, historically, and constitutionally dubious assertions, such as the claim that a president can be impeached for “legally permissible” conduct if his motives are “illegitimate.”
As precedent, the report cites the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, which is widely viewed by historians and legal scholars as a mistake, and an abuse of the majority’s power in the House.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
trea·son /ÈtrzYn/ Learn to pronounce noun the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
Any democrat that votes for this should be tried for treason and executed.
Any Republican too for that matter. Or the douche bag Amash the fake palestinian.
#2. To: nolu chan (#0)
such as the claim that a president can be impeached for “legally permissible” conduct if his motives are “illegitimate.”
Didn't the Democrats try that bullshit before with Trump's Muslim immigration ban? They claimed the ban was unconstitutional because Trump's "intent and motivation" was discriminatory.
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
When's Drumpf and Ghooliani's criminal case against Biden going to be presented?
Supermax in Florence can hold ALL of them - R's and D's alike.
#4. To: nolu chan (#0)
I think that you could have predicted that they would not cite their show-trial witnesses and that they (elected House members on the committee) would refuse to personally sign off on the findings of their legal staff.
Your previous posts were very impressive on these points.
#5. To: misterwhite (#2)
Didn't the Democrats try that bullshit before with Trump's Muslim immigration ban? They claimed the ban was unconstitutional because Trump's "intent and motivation" was discriminatory.
Trump v Hawaii, 17-965 (9th Cir, 26 Jun 2018)
They crashed and burned at SCOTUS where it ran headlong into federal statute law, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by PresidentWhenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
Invoking the law of unintended consequences, it called attention to Operation Wetback implemented in 1954.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
Operation Wetback was an immigration law enforcement initiative created by Joseph Swing, the Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), in cooperation with the Mexican government. The program was implemented in May 1954 by U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell. The short-lived operation used military-style tactics to remove Mexican immigrants—some of them American citizens—from the United States. Though millions of Mexicans had legally entered the country through joint immigration programs in the first half of the 20th century, Operation Wetback was designed to send them back to Mexico. The program became a contentious issue in Mexico–United States relations, even though it originated from a request by the Mexican government to stop the illegal entry of Mexican laborers into the United States. Legal entry of Mexican workers for employment was at the time controlled by the Bracero program, established during World War II by an agreement between the U.S. and Mexican governments. Operation Wetback was primarily a response to pressure from a broad coalition of farmers and business interests concerned with the effects of Mexican immigrants living in the United States without legal permission. Upon implementation, Operation Wetback gave rise to arrests and deportations by the U.S. Border Patrol.
#6. To: nolu chan (#5)
They crashed and burned at SCOTUS where it ran headlong into federal statute law, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f).
True, but I'm saying prior to that the lower courts denied the ban because it was discriminatory (ie., Trump instituted the ban because he's a racist).
#7. To: nolu chan (#5) (Edited)
Operation Free the CHABADnik Organized Criminal Human Trafficker:
Trump commutes fraud sentence of kosher meatpacker
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump, in a first exercise of his power to commute criminal sentences, cut short the 27-year prison term of a kosher meatpacking executive who was convicted eight years ago of bank fraud, the White House said on Wednesday...
...Rubashkin was convicted in 2009 of 86 counts of financial fraud that came to light after a government raid on a kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, where hundreds of undocumented immigrant workers were arrested.
{ golf clap } for Golf Hat "conservatism"
#8. To: Peromischievous leucopus, A K A Stone (#7)
Trump commutes fraud sentence of kosher meatpacker
And this is relevant to the thread topic... how??
#9. To: nolu chan (#8) (Edited)
It's just another instance that demonstrates Trump's consistent pattern of impeachable behavior - stemming from the multi-generational association of his family with the Odessa Mafia.
"Commerce between master and slave is ________"?
Surely an academic suuuuper genius like you can fill in the blank.
#10. To: nolu chan (#0)
Blobbo's done already? What happened - did his lunch trough run out of gravy?
Well, this seems to be shaping up as every bit the slapdash crock of barack I expected it to be.
#11. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#9)
Surely an academic suuuuper genius like you can fill in the blank.
Why bless your heart. I'll be glad to fill in for your blank stare.
From Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial:
2256. In the Belknap trial objection was successfully made to an opinion of a subordinate officer as to evidence of the character of respondent’s administration.—On July 12, 1876,1 in the Senate sitting for the impeachment trial of William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, Nelson H. Davis, Inspector General of the Army, was examined as a witness on behalf of the respondent, and Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter, of counsel for the respondent, having ascertained that witness had been in the Army during respondent’s entire administration and had been holding constant official relations with him, asked:From all you know of the subject, and from all you know of General Belknap, I ask you what has been the general character of his administration of the War Department?
Mr. Manager George A. Jenks at once objected:
The objection I make to that is that a witness must testify to character instead of to the specific acts of this man, or general acts. He must know what has been said by those who are familiar with his administration in that office, instead of how has he done the business.
Mr. Manager George F. Hoar said:
We understand also that it should be the opposite of the particular offense charged. If a man is charged with adultery, his reputation for chastity; if he is charged with perjury, his reputation for veracity. We suppose the question should be, ‘‘What is the reputation of the Secretary for official integrity?’’ * * * We do not understand that it is competent to prove by a subordinate officer in the Army, as an expert, the general character of the administration of a great officer of state. There is no such thing as an expert in such an administration. We object to the question unless it is limited to the reputation of the Secretary for official integrity.
#12. To: Hank Rearden (#10)
Blobbo's done already? What happened - did his lunch trough run out of gravy?
His belt is threatening to become a sports bra for man boobs. A little higher and he might Epstein himself.
Sloppy Jerry gets tired. And all the excitement nearly put him in a coma.
Well, this seems to be shaping up as every bit the slapdash crock of barack I expected it to be.
In the Andrew Johnson trial there were eleven (11) Articles. On May 16, 1868 the Senate vote to acquit on one (1) article and adjourned to regroup. On May 26, they met and acquitted on two (2) more articles. That left eight (8) to go. They adjourned and never resumed.
It is from that stinking turd pile that the House now reaches in, pulls out a few turds, and wants to polish them up and present them as diamonds and pearls. The Johnson impeachment was a sick joke, and the radical nutjobs want to renew it and make it a tradition.
It is going to be quite a show, but a short show.
#13. To: nolu chan (#12)
I hope it's a long show, with plenty of 'Rats being interrogated under oath.
#14. To: nolu chan (#11) (Edited)
C'mon Nolu Clump - tell the class who Sam Kislin is.
"While a few independent media sources have mentioned over the years that Sam Kislin—a Ukraine-born and now New York-based"
Rudy G: Godfather of the Russian Mob?
December 17, 2007
web.archive.org/web/20190...r_of_the_Russian_Mob.html
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]