https://www.washingtontimes.co...ouse-democrats-find/

A House divided: Dems find no GOP defectors for Trump impeachment vote

House Democrats are bracing for a stark party-line vote Thursday on the impeachment inquiry against President Trump that will highlight the partisan nature of the probe and give him fresh ammunition to argue that he is being railroaded.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries said he didn’t know if his side can garner any Republican support in the vote to formally set the process for an inquiry that has been racing forward for more than a month.

“Every member of the House of Representatives tomorrow will have to decide, ‘Are we going to put principle over party, the Constitution over corruption and democracy over dereliction of duty?’” Mr. Jeffries told reporters. “I expect the overwhelming majority of Democrats are going to support this resolution and it’s going to pass.”

Democrats appeared to abandon hope of securing GOP defectors for the vote, as Republicans closed ranks ahead of the first test of the push to punish Mr. Trump for prodding the Ukraine president to investigate corruption involving former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, a political rival, and his son Hunter.

Mr. Trump on Wednesday called on Republicans to stop arguing about the process and “close it out” by focusing on the substance of impeachment allegations.

“Republicans are very unified and energized in our fight on the Impeachment Hoax with the Do Nothing Democrats, and now are starting to go after the Substance even more than the very [unfair] Process,” the president wrote on Twitter.

Mr. Jeffries said Democrats would call the president’s bluff.

“The only thing that we’re concerned about is presenting the substantive truth to the American people, and as long as we continue to do that, the American people will make decisions about the legitimacy of our concern,” he said.

The resolution sets ground rules for the inquiry. It gives House intelligence committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, broad power to determine the course of the proceedings, including when to open hearings to the public, and directs him to deliver a report to the House Judiciary Committee that would decide on articles of impeachment.

The Judiciary Committee would then be authorized to begin its proceedings, during which the president and his counsel would be able to participate.

The new procedures also allow the intelligence committee to release deposition transcripts from the closed-door interviews that have been the mainstay of the inquiry.

Republicans, who have long objected to the closed-door hearings, to their lack of participation and the absence of due process for Mr. Trump, said the new rules change nothing.

They slammed the resolution for giving the pretense of fairness, taking particular issue with their inability to issue subpoenas without the Democrats’ approval.

“Without due process and without a fair process that respects minority rights, I do not believe the American people regard this as a legitimate process,” Rep. Tom Cole, Oklahoma Republican, said at a House Rules Committee hearing on the resolution. “Without those protections, this will be seen as just another partisan exercise.”

Attempting to preempt charges of a one-party impeachment drive, Democrats attempted to turn the tables on Republicans and blame them for any lopsided vote, accusing the GOP of blind allegiance to Mr. Trump.

“I think they really need to be careful because the long view of history will not treat them so well,” said Rep. Dan Kildee, Michigan Democrat. “This is really a party that is conceded its entire focus and its entire principle to the defense of a single person.”

The inquiry stems from a July 25 phone call in which Mr. Trump pressed Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky for a “favor” in investigating Mr. Biden and other corruption allegations. A whistleblower believed to be a CIA official assigned to the White House accused the president of abusing his power for personal gain, including withholding U.S. military aid from Ukraine to force the investigation.

A rough transcript of the call did not show a quid pro quo with the investigation request, but Democrats argue the threat was understood and part of an ongoing pressure campaign of “shadow” foreign policy conducted by Mr. Trump’s private lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.

The testimony provided so far, which has been gleaned from leaked copies of prepared opening remarks and accounts by congressional staff in the room, has largely centered on people’s opinions about what the president was doing when pressing for an investigation.

Mr. Trump wanted an investigation into allegations of corruption involving Mr. Biden and Hunter, who got a high-paying job on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company while his father was the point man for Obama White House policy in the country, which is notorious for corruption, especially in the energy industry.

Mr. Trump also wanted Ukraine to look into a missing Democratic National Committee server that was hacked by Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. An American cybersecurity company called CrowdStrike examined the server to probe the hack but it disappeared before it could be handed over to the FBI.

Mr. Trump subscribes to an unsubstantiated theory that the server ended up in Ukraine.

Democratic leaders until this week had resisted putting the impeachment inquiry to a vote, saying the complaints about the process masked Republicans’ inability to defend Mr. Trump’s action, which they describe as an abuse of his office for personal political gain.

The country is divided on the impeachment questions, putting Democratic lawmakers from conservative-leaning districts in a bind over the vote.

A Suffolk University poll for USA Today underscored the divide, with 37% of Americans saying the House should drop the investigation, 36% saying the House should impeach and 22% backing the probe but not impeachment.

Democrats insisted they were confident that vulnerable swing district Democrats wouldn’t be in any danger from a party-line vote.

“Public opinion has shifted strongly in favor of what we’re doing. And my Republican friends are desperately trying to find a strategy for stemming this public tide and the tide here in Congress,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly, Virginia Democrat.

At least one Democrat is likely to break with the party to vote against the inquiry.

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, who represents a conservative district in New Jersey, said the president should be investigated but any question of misconduct by the president should be settled in the 2020 election.

The closed-door investigation has been speeding forward.

House Democrats on Wednesday asked John Bolton, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, to testify next week in the closed-door probe. His lawyer, Charles Cooper will not let Mr. Bolton testify without a subpoena, CNN reported Wednesday evening.

They also called National Security Council lawyers John Eisenberg and Michael Ellis to testify.

Mr. Bolton has the potential to deliver the most explosive testimony regarding Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. He was involved in some of the key events with the Eastern European country.

A longtime Republican loyalist and neoconservative, Mr. Bolton could defend the president. But he was was fired by the president last month and could have an ax to grind.

The White House may try to block Mr. Bolton from testifying as it has done with previous witnesses.

Lawmakers on Wednesday heard from two State Department officials, Catherine Croft and Christine Anderson, who served under former U.S. Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker.

Both talked about their concerns over the role Mr. Giuliani played in Ukraine, according to copies of their opening statements obtained by The Associated Press.

Lawmakers heard testimony Tuesday from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the White House National Security Council, who said he was concerned about the July 25 phone call crossing a line into partisan politics.

He also said he tried to get a few missing details from the conversation placed back into the White House’s transcript of the call, according to The New York Times.

The president criticized the lieutenant colonel, a Purple Heart recipient, for being a “Never Trumper” whose testimony didn’t hurt him.

“Yesterday’s Never Trumper witness could find NO Quid Pro Quo in the Transcript of the phone call,” the president tweeted. “There were many people listening to the call. How come they (including the President of Ukraine) found NOTHING wrong with it. Witch Hunt!”

Reading that posted by feersum dreadnaught, the President should have cleared the slate day 1 in Office. The leftover trash from the former, fake American President. President Trump, when reelected, needs to take out the trash. Matters not if he has to work by candle light, run ads on craigslist, those people need to be replaced by dedicated Officials.

Here's another tidbit. File this under "Pot Calling the Kettle Black," or perhaps, "Eating One's Own:"

Ex-CIA boss Brennan appears to partly back Hillary Clinton's theory Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset .

If anyone needs a reminder, John Brennan was appointed CIA head by the Commie-in-Chief Barky Obummer, and is known to have voted for a communist for president. Giving him any credence to cast aspersions on someone else as being a "Russian asset" simply flies in the face of fantasy.

I know the name was posted on the previous page of this thread. I just want to post it myself and let the spiders have at it.

Eric Ciaramella

More on the Now Infamous Eric Ciaramella: He’s Connected to Steele Dossier, Brennan, Susan Rice and the Transfer of Funds from the IMF to the Ukraine

Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella

Eric Ciaramella whistleblower

Media not obligated to keep whistleblower's name secret, as the federal government is, Brit Hume says

^^

https://video.foxbusiness.com/...39001/#sp=show-clips

Republicans are fighting the impeachment inquiry 'tooth and nail': Rep. Andy Biggs


Lou Dobbs is HOT tonight!

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I know the name was posted on the previous page of this thread. I just want to post it myself and let the spiders have at it.

Eric Ciaramella

I’m sorry, is it pronounced “Chlamydial?”

From this point on, it's pronounced "mud"

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
From this point on, it's pronounced "mud"

Now that he's been outed, how many media types are going to go find and corner this guy for commentary? With the current corrupt media, my bet, not many. I wanna see this dude on TV 24/7 from here on out answering every conceivable question.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
From this point on, it's pronounced "mud"

Now that he's been outed, how many media types are going to go find and corner this guy for commentary? With the current corrupt media, my bet, not many. I wanna see this dude on TV 24/7 from here on out answering every conceivable question.

and making a boat-ton of money at the same time.

Why do we have to seek out the bad in good things? Would you rather that this asshole remained completely anonymous? How does that benefit us?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
From this point on, it's pronounced "mud"

Well that's not how I might spell "sedition" but, you know, tomato, tomatoe.


se·di·tion
/səˈdiSH(ə)n/
noun
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it. The following provides an overview of this particular crime against the government, with historical references.

Seditious Conspiracy and Federal Law: The Basics

The federal law against seditious conspiracy can be found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (which includes treason, rebellion, and similar offenses), specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2384. According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States:

To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or to level war against them;
To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; or
To take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.

Free Speech, Sedition, and Treason

In order to get a conviction for seditious conspiracy, the government must prove that the defendant in fact conspired to use force. Simply advocating for the use of force is not the same thing and in most cases is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. For example, two or more people who give public speeches suggesting the need for a total revolution "by any means necessary" have not necessarily conspired to overthrow the government. Rather, they're just sharing their opinions, however unsavory. But actively planning such an action (distributing guns, working out the logistics of an attack, actively opposing lawful authority, etc.) could be considered a seditious conspiracy.

Ultimately, the goal is to prevent threats against the United States while protecting individuals' First Amendment rights, which isn't always such a clear distinction.

Sedition differs from treason (defined in Article III of the U.S. Constitution) in a fundamental way. While seditious conspiracy is generally defined as conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state, treason is the more-serious offense of actively levying war against the United States or giving aid to its enemies. Another way of looking at it is that seditious conspiracy often occurs before an act of treason..

The demoncrats impeachment inquiry is turning into a real shit show. I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya.

This shit is going nowhere. Nowhere. Just wait and see. And President Trump is going to come out smelling like a rose.

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
The demoncrats impeachment inquiry is turning into a real shit show. I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya.

This shit is going nowhere. Nowhere. Just wait and see. And President Trump is going to come out smelling like a rose.

I think you're right. If the Repubs all stick together and keep this totally partisan it's likely to implode and completely sink them in 2020. Can't wait for the wailing and nashing of teeth when Trump is re-elected and the Repubs take majorities in the house and senate.

Does Eric Ciaramella aka Mud, have a GoFundMe account setup yet to receive the “Defense Fund” laundered Soros and Democratic Socialist payments for his service to the party?

GoFundMe, preferred by 9 out of 10 Liberals as a method to launder money.

Will Eric Ciaramella get as much as Ballzy Ford, or more?

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:

"He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters."

Yet, the DNI and the Intelligence Inspector General, knowing his name, let it go with seemingly no inquiry as they glibly told us that there is “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate?"

This makes me wonder about the DNI and the Intelligence Inspector General as more than just dupes.

The IG's office is supposed to investigate and the conclusory pronouncement that he's "credible" has always been light on evidence of investigation into this guy's credibility as other than a partisan hack.

An Obama leftover, I’m shocked...shocked.

Trump needs to clean house. Seriously.

If you worked for Obama, you’re gone. No exceptions. Out the goddam door!

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
An Obama leftover, I’m shocked...shocked.

Trump needs to clean house. Seriously.

If you worked for Obama, you’re gone. No exceptions. Out the goddam door!

Should have been initiated on Day One of his Presidency.

flashguy

Maybe President Trump and a Republican Congress will change the law that started in 1883. Maybe it's time. It's called the Pendelton Civil Reform Act.

"The Pendleton Civil Service Act provided for the selection of some government employees by competitive exams, rather than ties to politicians or political affiliation.

It also made it illegal to fire or demote these government officials for political reasons and created the United States Civil Service Commission to enforce the merit system. The act initially only applied to about ten percent of federal employees, but it now covers most federal employees." [formatting added] LINK

Though it's true that reforms by way of Congress as well as by executive order have occurred over the years, it may be time to revisit the philosophy under-girding the old system.

There was an unwritten requirement that those staying on as a non-political federal appointee would follow the lead of the incoming president.

Like the old, abandoned concept of nobles oblige, maybe it's time to consider what the old philosophy has wrought.

Today, we have deep state actors who use their protected positions to work against the president - even seeming so oblivious that their thoughts of grandeur make them incredulous that the president thinks he's actually in charge of policy.

In my view, there was a bargain in passing employee job security. The bargain was fidelity to the changing policies of elected leaders in exchange for job security.

Federal employees seem to be reneging on their part of the bargain. Maybe it's time to revisit civil service protections to meet the needs of today. It's not as if civil service is protected in the US Constitution.

Maybe revisiting a philosophy of "rotation in office" is a better way for us to proceed given our current experiences. Rotate people out to give others a chance to serve.

Now, the loss is, arguably, to the concept of institutional memory due to rotating workers out. But, if the "memory" is working to make a current president ineffective, maybe we should explore what will put the deep state off the notion that they're the un-elected 4th branch of government.

Maybe untying the president's hands when it comes to putting together a team to help meet voter's desires and presidential priorities is in order.

Oct 28, 2019
Attorney General Bill Barr: We'll let the chips fall where they may

Attorney General William Barr says John Durham is making progress in Russia-probe inquiry. Durham now has the ability impanel a grand jury, issue subpoenas and file criminal charges; David Spunt reports from Chicago.