•   
  •   
  •   

Politics Did Judiciary Committee’s First Impeachment Hearing Really Change Anything?

05:35  05 december  2019
05:35  05 december  2019 Source:   thedailybeast.com

House Democrats Unveil Articles of Impeachment Against Trump

  House Democrats Unveil Articles of Impeachment Against Trump House Democrats announced on Tuesday that they would move ahead this week with two articles of impeachment charging President Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, as they accused him of violating the Constitution by pressure Ukraine for help in the 2020 election. Speaking from a wood-paneled reception room just off the floor of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and leaders of six key committees said that Mr. Trump’s actions toward Ukraine, and his efforts to block Congress’s attempt to investigate, had left them no choice but to pursue one of the Constitution’s gravest remedies.

Judiciary ’ s re-entry into the impeachment fray comes at a moment of near-total saturation on all things impeachment : the public had The evidence at hand is well-known, and the bulk of the work left to do in Judiciary focuses on drawing up articles of impeachment , not necessarily building support for them.

On Wednesday morning, the House Judiciary Committee convened its first hearing in the impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump -- bringing in four constitutional lawyers to debate what, exactly

Over the course of eight hours on Wednesday, the first impeachment hearing in the House Judiciary Committee—designed to place the allegations against President Trump in constitutional context—saw at least eight parliamentary interruptions from Republicans on the committee.

Jerrold Nadler, Doug Collins sitting at a table: Saul Loeb/Getty© Provided by The Daily Beast Saul Loeb/Getty

It saw dozens and dozens of mentions of the Founding Fathers and one heated back-and-forth as to what they might have thought about President Trump’s conduct if they were around today. There was one theatrical eye-roll from the committee’s top Republican when the Democratic chairman delivered his opening statement, and at least two stifled smirks from Democrats when a GOP firebrand, Rep. Jim Jordan, spoke.

Impeachment needle not moving as majority of voters oppose removing Trump: polls

  Impeachment needle not moving as majority of voters oppose removing Trump: polls As the House of Representatives begins drafting articles of impeachment against President Trump, two new national polls indicate a slight majority of Americans still oppose impeaching and removing him.“American voters signal they are slightly more inclined not to impeach than to impeach," Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy noted.

The House Judiciary Committee concluded its hearing as Chairman Jerry Nadler said President Donald Trump had already met his three-part test for impeachment . “All three parts of that have been met,” Nadler said, citing Trump’ s request of the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens

The impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump enters its next stage this week as the House Judiciary Committee holds its first hearing .

On the witness stand, there were three impeachment-supportive law professors called by Democrats, one of whom, Pamela Karlan, got in a near-shouting match with Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). And there was one impeachment-skeptical professor called by Republicans, Jonathan Turley, who submitted a 53-page opening statement and invoked the Dover Treaty of 1670, necromancy, and an angry golden doodle named Luna one time each.

At the conclusion of the day, however, the most important number remained unclear: were any minds actually changed about whether or not to impeach Trump?

Judiciary’s re-entry into the impeachment fray comes at a moment of near-total saturation on all things impeachment: the public had just taken in two weeks of wall-to-wall coverage of hearings featuring key witnesses in the Ukraine matter. The evidence at hand is well-known, and the bulk of the work left to do in Judiciary focuses on drawing up articles of impeachment, not necessarily building support for them.

House Judiciary Committee abruptly adjourns after marathon debate, will vote on articles of impeachment Friday morning

  House Judiciary Committee abruptly adjourns after marathon debate, will vote on articles of impeachment Friday morning The decision came after more than 14 hours of rancorous debate about the president’s alleged “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.”The all-day debate ended as it began, with angry exchanges, personal insults and recycled arguments about process and propriety as the committee moved toward voting to impeach Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors.

Law scholars testified before the House Judiciary Committee as part of the on-going impeachment inquiry of President Trump. All four experts engaged with lawmakers on the constitutional framework of the impeachment provisions and whether President Trump meets the criteria to be impeached .

As President Trump kicks off NATO meetings overseas, his focus appears to remain centered on the impeachment inquiry playing out at home. The showdown on

But Democrats say that’s not supposed to be the point of Judiciary’s hearings at this stage. Many of them acknowledge that by now, public opinion on impeachment is close to set, and a dramatic swing one way or the other is unlikely, barring any new revelations.

“I don't think the purpose of an impeachment hearing, frankly, is to persuade the American people,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), a Judiciary member. “You look at the math—there's like, 10 percent that have not reached a decision, so I think within that group, maybe some people will watch the hearing and come to some conclusion.”

But Democrats say they have an obligation to present the evidence already gathered in a setting that places it in the proper historic and legal context for impeachment—and sets up the decision of whether or not they proceed with articles of impeachment.

“We ought to be making a decision in the context of these impeachment hearings, based on the evidence and the law and the Constitution,” said Cicilline. “This is about sharing with the American people the facts, the evidence, and the prevailing constitutional standards, because after all, the democracy that we are fighting to protect belongs to them.”

With son sitting with her, U.S. Rep. Martha Roby votes against Trump impeachment

  With son sitting with her, U.S. Rep. Martha Roby votes against Trump impeachment The retiring representative said she believed the impeachment process was flawed. She did not address the substance of the charges against Trump."The articles of impeachment before us in this Committee do not meet the necessary requirements nor have they followed an exhaustive pursuit to even find all of the facts of the case," the Alabama Republican said. "Therefore, the bar to impeach a sitting president of the United States has not been met.

The House Judiciary Committee will hold its first Impeachment hearing today; KDKA' s Lisa Washington reports.

The House Judiciary Committee is holding its first hearing in the impeachment inquiry of President Trump. The hearing will feature testimony from four constitutional law experts. Yahoo Finance' s Julie Hyman, Adam Shapiro, Scott Gamm, Rick Newman and Invesco' s Kristina Hopper discuss.

Wednesday’s hearing underscores the challenges facing Democrats as they enter the final stage of the impeachment inquiry: they want to proceed quickly, but not so quickly as to deprive the minority or the president himself of an opportunity to participate. And they’re cognizant of not looking like they’re rushing to judgment, with some lawmakers saying they are not sure how they would vote on impeachment—or if such a vote would happen at all—even though many have argued that Trump’s conduct on Ukraine is impeachable.

Though no schedule has been formally set, it is widely expected that the House will vote on articles of impeachment before Congress goes home for Christmas. Before then, the Judiciary Committee will need to craft, debate, and vote on the articles before they can be approved by the full House. What’s unclear is exactly how many hearings like Wednesday’s will happen before then; it’s possible, Democrats say, that someone from the House Intelligence Committee majority will appear to present their 300-plus page report on their investigation into the Ukraine saga.

Trump lawyer Giuliani at White House as U.S. lawmakers vote on impeachment charges

  Trump lawyer Giuliani at White House as U.S. lawmakers vote on impeachment charges President Donald Trump's private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was spotted entering the White House on Friday.WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was spotted entering the White House on Friday, the same day that a Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives panel approved impeachment charges against Trump.

Senate Judiciary Committee opens investigation into former U. S . AG Loretta Lynch - Продолжительность: 5:05 Fox Business 108 622 просмотра. Sources: Rudy Giuliani lobbying to join White House impeachment defense team - Продолжительность: 7:57 CNN 267 124 просмотра.

Прямой эфир: 4 дек. 2019 г. House Judiciary Committee holds first hearing in impeachment inquiry against President Trump. Watch: House Judiciary Committee impeachment inquiry hearings - Day 1 (FULL LIVE STREAM) - Продолжительность: 9:52:49 Washington Post 328 408 просмотров.

It’s a tight timeline already, but some Democrats are starting to get antsy, particularly those from the caucus’ left wing. One progressive, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), has called on Judiciary to get down to business and proceed to a vote on articles of impeachment, arguing the required evidence is in plain sight.

Judiciary does have a process to undertake, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) told The Daily Beast, but “not an incredibly long one.”

“It’s pretty clear when you read the intel report, they’re recommending articles of impeachment,” said Pocan, who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “I think he did impeachable offenses, but of course, everyone wants to see what they put together… But to act coy, that’s not so credible.”

Republicans seemed to revel in this tension, arguing that Democrats—driven to the edge by their frenzied, anti-Trump constituents—had already made up their mind on impeachment and were putting on a show that amounted to procedural filler.

In fact, argued several GOP lawmakers, Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee had already supported an impeachment inquiry long beforehand, based on the allegations of obstruction of justice outlined in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. “Sixteen of them,” Jordan said, pointing to the Democratic side of the dais, “had voted to move forward on impeachment.”

Trump: 'I'll do whatever I want' during Senate impeachment trial

  Trump: 'I'll do whatever I want' during Senate impeachment trial President Trump said Friday that he hasn’t decided whether to wage a long or short impeachment defense in the U.S. Senate, but either way, he expressed confidence in the outcome. “I’ll do whatever I want. Look, there is — we did nothing wrong,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “So I’ll do long or short. I’ve heard Mitch [McConnell], I’ve heard Lindsey [Graham]. I think they are very much in agreement on some concept. I’ll do whatever they want to do, it doesn’t matter.

“Today, we’re talking about whether positions they’ve already taken are constitutional!” he said in disbelief.

The three Democrat-called witnesses were as frequently a target for GOP ire as their Democratic rivals were. They sought to frame them as equally Trump-crazed: early in the proceeding, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), a top Trump ally on the Hill, tweeted that the witnesses had won “Dems’ nationwide talent search for the most elitist, unhinged anti-Trump professors in America. These meltdowns based on triggered emotions, 3% of the facts & ignoring the other 97% of the story is a permanent stain on US history.”

Karlan, an election law expert at Stanford University, was a particular target. In his questioning, Gaetz sought to grill her on her past campaign contributions to Democrats, asking why she gave more money to Hillary Clinton’s campaign than to Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s. “Because I have been giving a lot more money to charity because there are a lot of poor people in the United States,” she replied.

And when Karlan attempted an ill-advised joke by saying Trump “can name his son Barron but he cannot make him a baron,” Republicans blew it up into an epic offense, prompting the Trump campaign and GOP leaders in Congress to demand she—and Democrats—apologize for it. Karlan later did apologize.

The day’s sniping was expected for a committee known for its partisan brawlers on both sides of the aisle. Given that context, the mostly plodding nature of the day’s proceedings relieved Democrats, many of whom said they were pleased with how the marathon hearing ultimately went.

Near the end of the hearing, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) thanked the professors for “bringing the Constitution to life.”

“There's a section of the public that remains unconvinced,” insisted Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA). “It's that group of people that perhaps have been positively impacted by today's discussion by these constitutional scholars.”

Read more at The Daily Beast.

Impeachment Vote a Crucial Test for Vulnerable House Democrats .
The year-old Democratic majority in the U.S. House faces its toughest test now that the chamber has locked in a vote on impeaching President Donald Trump next week. It’s a step that many moderates in the party had hoped to avoid. The Democrats who flipped Republican seats in 2018 to give Speaker Nancy Pelosi her gavel have helped pass more than 400 pieces of legislation in the House this year. But it’s a vote on historic articles of impeachment that could define their 2020 campaigns and their political careers.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 1
This is interesting!