Trump Impeachment Hearings [Merged]

Plutonius

macrumors 604
Original poster
Feb 22, 2003
7,976
6,190
New Hampshire, USA
It's probably a good idea to start one thread on the actual hearings.

Varies GOP members have mentioned that they are probably going to call call Hunter Biden, the whistleblower and Schiff to testify in the hearings.

The Democrats have veto power over who the Republicans call as a witness and it will be interesting who the Democrats allow to testify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhonindk

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
737
13,012
Rock Ridge, California
It will be more interesting to hear the creative legal justifications for calling each of those individuals. Because once it becomes clear it has little to do with the actual trial, more about political posturing & points, it will be interesting how it's seen by the public.
 
Last edited:

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,442
5,728
OBJECTIVE reality
Varies GOP members have mentioned that they are probably going to call call Hunter Biden, the whistleblower and Schiff to testify in the hearings.
Indeed. Devin Nunes is, as samcraig puts it, already playing games:

“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,” wrote Devin Nunes (Calif.), ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee. “Your failure to fulfill Minority witness requests shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.”​
The Democrats have veto power over who the Republicans call as a witness and it will be interesting who the Democrats allow to testify.
Well, it’s clear the Republicans want to make this about their favorite Biden conspiracy, but Schiff has set clear guidelines for what will and won’t be allowed:
● Did Trump request a foreign government conduct investigations that would benefit the president’s personal political interests?​
● Did Trump, or his aides, use the power of the presidency to apply pressure on Ukraine?​
● Did the Trump administration attempt to obstruct justice by concealing evidence of the president’s actions related to Ukraine?​

Expect tons of disingenuous GOP histrionics.

Source
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
737
13,012
Rock Ridge, California
Republicans put out their list.


"Republicans release witness list as the impeachment probe moves into its public phase" https://twitter.com/i/events/1193302791218839552
A little more detail...
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/9/20956900/house-republicans-impeachment-inquiry-witness-hunter-biden-whistleblower-dnc

House Republicans requested Saturday that several people, including Hunter Biden and the anonymous whistleblower, testify before select committees as a part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

The request came as lawmakers prepare to hold public inquiry hearings beginning Wednesday. Three House committees have been privately questioning witnesses for the last several weeks.

A resolution outlining the process of the impeachment inquiry that passed the House in late October affords Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee the right to request certain witnesses be brought to testify. Those requests can only be granted by the chair of that committee, Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, or through the approval of the majority of the committee’s members.

Saturday, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, sent a letter to Schiff that both requested a number of witnesses be called and complaining that House Democrats’ “sham impeachment process” unfairly inhibits Republicans from fully participating in the hearings due to the rules around such requests.

These rules, as Vox’s Li Zhou notes, align with the procedures followed in past impeachment inquiries, but have nevertheless become a point of contention for Republicans.

The witnesses in the request also reflect Republican disdain for the inquiry. The list includes many President Donald Trump has accused of wrongdoing, including the whistleblower whose complaint kicked off the impeachment inquiry and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, as well as figures the president and his allies have derided as partisan players like the whistleblower’s sources and a former DNC staffer.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,615
36,941
USA
A little more detail...
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/9/20956900/house-republicans-impeachment-inquiry-witness-hunter-biden-whistleblower-dnc

House Republicans requested Saturday that several people, including Hunter Biden and the anonymous whistleblower, testify before select committees as a part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

The request came as lawmakers prepare to hold public inquiry hearings beginning Wednesday. Three House committees have been privately questioning witnesses for the last several weeks.

A resolution outlining the process of the impeachment inquiry that passed the House in late October affords Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee the right to request certain witnesses be brought to testify. Those requests can only be granted by the chair of that committee, Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, or through the approval of the majority of the committee’s members.

Saturday, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, sent a letter to Schiff that both requested a number of witnesses be called and complaining that House Democrats’ “sham impeachment process” unfairly inhibits Republicans from fully participating in the hearings due to the rules around such requests.

These rules, as Vox’s Li Zhou notes, align with the procedures followed in past impeachment inquiries, but have nevertheless become a point of contention for Republicans.

The witnesses in the request also reflect Republican disdain for the inquiry. The list includes many President Donald Trump has accused of wrongdoing, including the whistleblower whose complaint kicked off the impeachment inquiry and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, as well as figures the president and his allies have derided as partisan players like the whistleblower’s sources and a former DNC staffer.
Republicans want to carry out Trump's desire to tamper with the 2020 election by investigating Biden
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas Veil

Bug-Creator

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2011
567
2,174
Germany
Calling Hunter Biden in is like calling the CEO of WalMart in because someone got injured using a kitchen knife they bought there.
That would at least make some sense, but calling in Hunter?

If what he did in Ukraine was a crime or not has no meaning over how, why and if Trump tried to pressure the Ukraine president to help him with his reelection campaign.
 

Apple OC

macrumors 68040
Oct 14, 2010
3,580
2,262
Hogtown
This is going to play out perfectly just in time for the Election... meanwhile, we must save Hunter from “Orange Man Bad”
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,615
36,941
USA
They want to impeach based Trumps dealings on the Ukraine/Hunter/Joe Biden. Be careful what you wish for...
Holding a corrupt POTUS accountable and using the constitutional process of impeachment? I'm totally ok with that. The question is why any American would be against it.

Are you arguing that it could hurt democrats in the election? Interesting that the Dems would care enough to "risk" that for this country and their party yet Republicans are complicit and seemingly care more about party over country.
 
Last edited:

Plutonius

macrumors 604
Original poster
Feb 22, 2003
7,976
6,190
New Hampshire, USA
The Republicans don't care about that. It's about revenge. They want him exposed and in danger.
I would have to disagree.

The Republicans know that Schiff will not agree to the list of people they want to testify at the impeachment hearing (i.e. they already knew that the WB will not testify).

The Republicans will then claim that it's a partisan impeachment and will vote against impeachment because of the process.

Nothing is lost by having him not testify.
I think it's a win-win for the Republicans.

If the WB testifies, the Republicans get what they want.

If the WB is prevented from testifying, the Republicans will call the impeachment hearings a sham.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlliFlowers

beaker7

macrumors 6502a
Mar 16, 2009
895
2,458
I would have to disagree.

The Republicans know that Schiff will not agree to the list of people they want to testify at the impeachment hearing (i.e. they already knew that the WB will not testify).

The Republicans will then claim that it's a partisan impeachment and will vote against impeachment because of the process.



I think it's a win-win for the Republicans.

If the WB testifies, the Republicans get what they want.

If the WB is prevented from testifying, the Republicans will call the impeachment hearings a sham.
They’re going to call it a sham no matter what.

Why put the whistleblower’s life in danger for no reason?

The complaint has been thoroughly corroborated.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,446
30,496
Catskill Mountains
Kind of surprised that Nunes didn’t ask for Hillary to testify about Benghazi, but there’s still time.
Why doesn't Nunes stick to his knitting, e.g. suing the imaginary cow on Twitter.


... The Republicans know that Schiff will not agree to the list of people they want to testify at the impeachment hearing (i.e. they already knew that the WB will not testify).

The Republicans will then claim that it's a partisan impeachment and will vote against impeachment because of the process.
I wouldn't be surprised, but the revenge factor already seems to play well with the more die-hard of Trump's base on Twitter. Or are those all Russian bots just trying to stir up trouble? I don't want to deny true believers among MAGA-hat wearers their perfect right to want "revenge" on some whistleblower who somehow in that madhouse of an administration managed to hold a good thought for the constitution of the USA and realized that's not the rulebook Trump uses.


I think it's a win-win for the Republicans.

If the WB testifies, the Republicans get what they want.

If the WB is prevented from testifying, the Republicans will call the impeachment hearings a sham.
It's a win-win in the GOP's benighted bubble maybe.

If they look at the results of the 2019 elections, and the 2018 ones before that, they might get a clue they're not in the bubble any more, they're officially on the road to a cul de sac in 2020.

"Stick with Trump" doesn't have to mean die on every hill with him. Some would sooner bank on the economy holding up (and urge the dude to settle his fricken trade wars already) rather than count on Americans giving a damn about impeachment one way or the other during the 2020 campaigns. People really do vote their pocketbooks. Republicans who vote for their pocketbooks don't vote for candidates who want to increase social contract investments. They vote for tax cuts (funded or otherwise, these days), and they vote for perceived state of the economy. So far Wall Street, being anti-Warren, anti-Sanders and on the fence about Biden or Klobuchar et al., figures to paste over any impending signs of the party being over because it's more fun than heading for the exits when a crash would only exacerbate the move leftward. It's not like populism died just because Trump's in a little trouble. Today's populists are a cross-spectrum bunch and fairly unpredictable for 2020 if you ask me.

Leaving the populists aside, along with questions about how many of them actually vote versus their decibel levels online, never mind the bot counts, Pro-Trump people will vote for Trump if he's on the ballot. Anti-Trump people would vote for eggs over easy as long as it's not Trump making them. There are arguably far more of the latter than of the former. And Pennsylvania's gone, from the looks of it. Does the GOP want to wait for Michigan? Wisconsin? before they decide to dump Trump and appeal to the moderates among indie voters? They don't know yet, and they're going crazy trying to decide.

Meanwhile the Senate races are shaping up to be nightmarish for the GOP. They always knew they'd have 23 seats to defend but they didn't count on many of them being in red states. Thanks to Graham's rather inexplicable turnabout, and thanks to other more predictable Trump sycophants, some recalculations of where to dump Republican money in 2020 Congressional races has ensued.

Bottom line I think the GOP figures only the judiciary can save them. That boils down to keeping the ability to confirm federal bench appointments. So it means keep the Senate and let Trump fend for himself in the 2020 campaigns.

It might even mean taking the McConnell thumb off the Senate and seeing how those Republican Senators individually view the actual, factual content of the impeachment charges and evidence. Some of them do have a conscience, some of them are living in increasingly purple states yet still have an incumbency advantage so may figure they can afford to vote for removal and still hang onto their seats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huntn and samcraig

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,615
36,941
USA
I would have to disagree.

The Republicans know that Schiff will not agree to the list of people they want to testify at the impeachment hearing (i.e. they already knew that the WB will not testify).

The Republicans will then claim that it's a partisan impeachment and will vote against impeachment because of the process.



I think it's a win-win for the Republicans.

If the WB testifies, the Republicans get what they want.

If the WB is prevented from testifying, the Republicans will call the impeachment hearings a sham.
The Republicans can claim all they want - but if they vote partisan only, then they will be outed as such. How is that a win-win. They would be admitting that they care more about the process than the transgressions. Seems backwards to me - but if that's the play they want to make...