Judiciary Panel Advances Impeachment Inquiry of Trump as Doubts Linger

  
Via:  john-russell  •  6 days ago  •  55 comments

Judiciary Panel Advances Impeachment Inquiry of Trump as Doubts Linger
"It has been an impeachment inquiry and it continues to be...We are examining the various malfeasances of the president with the view toward possibly, the possibility, of introducing, of recommending articles of impeachment to the House. That is what an impeachment inquiry is," Nadler told reporters in the Capitol Monday. 

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The House Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday in favor of a new resolution formalizing the impeachment inquiry and further intensifying its investigation into President Trump amid a growing chorus of Democrats to hold the president accountable for his actions. The vote fell along party lines 24-17. 

While mostly technical, the committee's vote also moves to install new procedures for its inquiry, allowing committee chairman Jerry Nadler to designate which committee and subcommittee hearings are related to the probe, give committee counsel extra time to question witnesses and receive evidence in closed executive session. 

"The resolution before us represents the necessary next step in our investigation of corruption, obstruction, and abuse of power," Nadler said in a statement before Thursday's meeting. 

Nadler, on Monday, referred to his committee's actions as an "impeachment inquiry," but he did not refer to the inquiry as "formal."

"It has been an impeachment inquiry and it continues to be...We are examining the various malfeasances of the president with the view toward possibly, the possibility, of introducing, of recommending articles of impeachment to the House. That is what an impeachment inquiry is," Nadler told reporters in the Capitol Monday. 

House Judiciary Republican aides reiterated that they do not believe the new procedures the majority is slated to formalize expands in any way the power of the panel, they said in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. "There is nothing novel," one aide said. The new procedures would have "zero impact" on House decorum rules regarding accusations against the president that members can discuss openly, another aide added. 

The aides sought to downplay the move by the majority, saying the main reason the new procedures are being authorized is that Democrats don't have enough support to initiate a "formal" impeachment inquiry through a resolution approved by a full vote on the House floor. 

At this point, a majority of House Democrats now support opening an impeachment inquiry. There has been some confusion over whether the Judiciary Committee's investigation is a formal one. Nadler in his statement addressed ongoing confusion over the semantics of just what his committee intends to do. 

"This Committee is engaged in an investigation that will allow us to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to President Trump. Some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Some call it an impeachment investigation. There is no legal difference between these terms, and I no longer care to argue about the nomenclature," he said. 

"But let me clear up any remaining doubt: The conduct under investigation poses a threat to our democracy. We have an obligation to respond to this threat. And we are doing so."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has continued to urge her colleagues to pursue other means to holding the president and administration accountable, rather than impeachment. Pelosi has been adamant in her talks with the Democratic caucus that the public still isn't supportive of taking such a serious step. Nadler argues that his committee is bound to continue its probe.

"As Members of Congress-and, in particular, as members of the House Judiciary Committee-we have a responsibility to investigate each of these allegations and to determine the appropriate remedy. That responsibility includes making a judgment about whether to recommend articles of impeachment," Nadler said. "That judgment cannot be based on our feelings about President Trump. It should not be a personal reaction to misguided policies or personal behavior. It must be a decision based on the evidence before us, and the evidence that keeps coming in."

Grace Segers, Kimberly Brown and Camilo Montoya-Galvez contributed reporting. 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    6 days ago

He's going to be impeached because they are going to find that he committed impeachable offenses. 

I actually believe this will increase the Democratic turnout in the election next year. 

I don't see many people voting for Trump because they feel sorry for him because he was impeached. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 days ago
He's going to be impeached because they are going to find that he committed impeachable offenses.  I actually believe this will increase the Democratic turnout in the election next year. 

I agree, somewhat.  Republicans will protect Trump no matter what the charges show, so Trump will not be impeached in the Senate.  But if the Democrats do a good job with showcasing the case behind the impeachment, it should rile up the Democratic and Independent bases to cause a larger turnout.

Democrats don't need to remove Trump from the presidency, that just need to demonstrate the utter corruption that is Trump and show how Congressional Republicans are protecting that corruption at the cost of the country's democracy.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 days ago

Why John, Why???  Why do you consistently beat a dead horse?  It's almost as if you've lost all ability to live in the real world instead of your fantasy world of "slaying the Dragon".

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2    6 days ago
Why John, Why???  Why do you consistently beat a dead horse?  It's almost as if you've lost all ability to live in the real world instead of your fantasy world of "slaying the Dragon"

A dead horse? This is a major national news story from THIS MORNING. 

Just stop 1st. Whatever you are trying to do isnt working. 

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    6 days ago
Whatever you are trying to do isnt working. 

It certainly isn't working for you.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.2.3  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    6 days ago

This morning? Had you surfaced last week during Sharpiegate, you would have heard MissNBC’s musings of how futile impeachment chatter would be. It’s known only for value as a distraction.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.4  MUVA  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2    6 days ago

The plane the plane.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 days ago
He's going to be impeached because they are going to find that he committed impeachable offenses. 

Wrong!   It's all for show and it's for that special wing of the democratic party that must have impeachment. Enjoy it John. It goes nowhere and it is designed that way!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 days ago
He's going to be impeached because they are going to find that he committed impeachable offenses.

Hilarious.  Damn JR, your comic skills are greatly improving.  Congratulations.

Let's take a stroll down memory lane for a minute shall we?

There were Democrats that were calling for his impeachment even before he was sworn into office.  So much for the mental acuity of some Democrats.

Then there was the Stormy issue, Russia collusion, Mueller investigation (that's the one where I believe it was Schiff and Swalwell both claimed to have seen the "evidence"), the only thing the Democrats have succeeded in doing thus far has been shooting their wad.

Now, maybe someone should help you with the math aspect of the situation.  There are 118 Democrats that already want him impeached.  There will be NO, let me repeat that so the word is understood NO, evidence of anything that will surface that there has been anything near impeachable evidence.   The remainder of the House Democrats will retain their sanity and watch the wackos go off the rails uselessly.   Now as to the math...   it will take a lot more than 118 idiots to impeach President Trump.   And even if the House succeeds in impeaching President Trump, it will die a painful death in the Senate which votes yeah or nay on the House indictment.  

The end result?  You'll be saying President Trump until January 2025.

 
 
 
loki12
1.4.1  loki12  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4    6 days ago

I’m sure any day, Flynn is going to turn on him, no wait I meant Manafort, Cohen? Papadopolous? I’m sure once Avenatti gets out of jail....trumps toast!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.2  XDm9mm  replied to  loki12 @1.4.1    6 days ago

Actually, I'm hoping that the purported exculpatory evidence that was WITHHELD by the FBI that would have supported Flynn sees the light of day.  If it does, it would not be the first time they've done that.   Hell Mueller was threatened with Contempt of Court if HE didn't provide the evidence to the judge hearing an appeal.   The men that were incarcerated were released, and a couple of FBI agents involved took their place in prison!!

 
 
 
loki12
1.4.3  loki12  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.2    6 days ago

The attorney who was actually running the investigation for the senile old man Mueller has been sanctioned and fined for withholding exculpatory evidence before. He has no integrity or honor.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.4.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.2    6 days ago

You read too many conspiracy theories. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.5  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4.4    6 days ago
You read too many conspiracy theories. 

What the fuck are you talking about?  Mueller WAS threatened with contempt for withholding evidence and Flynn's attorneys are fightint in court to get the withheld evidence.

Now, what's a 'conspiracy theory' about that?  Please be specific now JR...  no TPM's

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.4.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  loki12 @1.4.3    6 days ago

Either does the man they were investigating.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.4.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.5    6 days ago
Sidney Powell, Flynn's New Lawyer, Is Conspiracy Theorist And Fox News Regular

Powell has an extremely active presence on Twitter, where she has argued that Flynn’s prosecution is a  “horrific injustice”  and that Mueller’s team engaged in  “obstruction”  by “hiding evidence that exonerates him.” As part of a pattern of frequently amplifying conspiratorial rants about the Mueller probe, Powell has also  repeatedly retweeted  major accounts that promote the QAnon conspiracy theory and  shared articles  from Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory website, Infowars (in October 2017, Powell was also  interviewed  by then-Infowars Washington bureau chief Jerome Corsi.).

Powell’s conspiratorial Twitter musings are not limited to the Mueller probe. She has  repeatedly tweeted  about George Soros, the Jewish billionaire philanthropist who is  regularly targeted  with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. In December, she  accused  the Federal Reserve of deliberately trying to “#crash the market” as part of a deliberate plot to destroy Trump “and enrich #Soros & themselves. #Soros has done it before.”

She has  also tweeted  that “#Islam is only ‘religion’ of which I am aware that seeks to destroy others & would disenfranchise > 1/2 world population.”

Powell’s website  sells  T-shirts describing Mueller and six other key law enforcement figures in the case as “Creeps on a Mission.” The shirt is “a great gift for those who know the Mueller investigation of the President is its own crime,”  according to the website .

https://www.nationalmemo.com/sidney-powell-flynns-new-lawyer-is-conspiracy-theorist-and-fox-news-regular/?cn-reloaded=1

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.4.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4.7    6 days ago

This is a tweet by Sidney Powell that promotes a Q conspiracy theory. 

D8411bpXUAIP2Qg?format=png&name=900x900

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.4.9  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4.7    6 days ago

Is she or is she NOT suing them for what they "purportedly" (I guess you missed that part of my earlier post.) withheld.

Regardless of what balderdash you discovered on one of your far left web sites, the fact that a there are legal proceedings underway is not negated.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.4.10  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1.4.8    6 days ago

Here is a tweet by @prayingmedic  , one of the QAnon nuts Sidney Powell attempted to promote

Pinned Tweet
KcATKNV5_normal.jpg
Praying Medic
@prayingmedic
For decades, the world has been run by a corrupt political system. The mainstream media has kept you in the dark about it.
Q is communicating Trump's plan to remove that corruption.
Research for yourself. Think for yourself. Trust yourself. Sheep no more .
Here is one by @QBlueSky@, the other QAnon nut she was promoting
YmF0JKwj_normal.png
@QBlueSkyQ
We also know planes did not take down the world trade center buildings #NeverForget911
Major University Study Finds "Fire Did Not Bring Down Tower 7 On 9/11"
 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.4.11  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.9    6 days ago

The judge will let us know what happened. I read he was having trouble keeping himself from laughing the other day. 

Flynn's lawyer has appeared many times on Fox News, particularly Lou Dobbs (who has promoted conspiracy theories), and has promoted conspiracies on her own twitter. 

Nothing is impossible, but my guess would be she is reaching. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.4.12  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @1.4.5    5 days ago
Mueller WAS threatened with contempt for withholding evidence and Flynn's attorneys are fightint in court to get the withheld evidence.

Was he actually charged with contempt, or was this just an empty trick?

 
 
 
WallyW
1.5  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 days ago
I actually believe this will increase the Democratic turnout in the election next year. 

No John.....

any  attempt  too impeach Trump will be an epic failure, and will produce the opposite effect.

The American people don't support  it..

 
 
 
squiggy
1.6  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 days ago

We need to investigate who sharpied that brow onto Nadler’s picture. Looks horrible. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.7  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1    6 days ago

Of course the democratic voters will come out that is the only reason to keep this narrative going for uniformed lemmings to the cliff boys.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2  Sean Treacy    6 days ago

Democrats can't even make a coherent argument for impeachment. Steny Hoyer, the second ranking Democrat in the House, just said no impeachment inquiry is underway. 

August was supposed to be their big month to gain popular support for impeachment .  Whoops!

 
 
 
JBB
2.1  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    6 days ago

The question is not whether Trump has committed impeachable crimes or whether the Democrats have enough evidence to impeach him. He did and they do. The real question is, do Moscow Mithch and the damn gop in the US Senate have the courage, love of country and balls needed to do the right thing and convict the no good miserable fraud, or not?

Are there still enough BIG R Republicans left to end our national nightmare?

 
 
 
squiggy
2.1.1  squiggy  replied to  JBB @2.1    6 days ago

Is that your effort - trying to shame politicians?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @2.1    6 days ago
The question is not whether Trump has committed impeachable crimes or whether the Democrats have enough evidence to impeach him. He did and they do.

Russia, Russia, Russia, Stormy, Stormy, Stormy, collusion, collusion, collusion, Mueller, Mueller, Mueller......

I'd go on, but why bother.  Show me EXPLICITLY where there is that "evidence" you speak of.  You can do that, can't you?

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.3  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.2    6 days ago

The evidence we've all seen and heard, and more is being hidden.  Perhaps you should look up what impeachment is about.  Its not the same as indictment.  Investigations are about uncovering what is hidden.  In PABOTUS's case, he hides everything and lies about it,  so all is suspect.  Proof is after investigation is complete (and Muelller specifically did NOT complete his because he couldn't indict a sitting pres).  We know gop loves investigations (hello Benghazi), so lets just get going.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.4  MUVA  replied to  JBB @2.1    6 days ago

Doing what you want is patriotic that is rich what you are asking for is as un American as it comes that the fact jack.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @2.1.3    6 days ago
The evidence we've all seen and heard, and more is being hidden.

Please be SPECIFIC as to what "evidence" you've seen and heard.   To date, I've heard nothing but suppositions, conjecture, innuendo, rumor, hyperbole and essentially a pile of steaming shit from the Trump haters, with NO factual basis to support them.

I'd also like to know exactly what "evidence" you claim is being hidden?  Are you now a seer and able to peer into the unknown with accuracy?  If so, please look to the next Powerball drawing and let me know (privately of course) what the winning numbers are.

 
 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.6    6 days ago

Pure bullshit from yet another Trump hating operation.

Besides, what they posted is OPINION.....   not factual.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  lib50 @2.1.3    6 days ago

"Hidden Evidence!"

that's about sums up how worthless this is,

 
 
 
lib50
2.1.9  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.5    6 days ago
Please be SPECIFIC as to what "evidence" you've seen and heard. 

According to gop standards for evidence, all I need is to say 'someone said', or 'my friend John said...'  but I feel generous today.

https://rootsaction.org/trump-articles-of-impeachment

Also make sure you understand the difference standards for impeachment and indictment.

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.10  loki12  replied to  lib50 @2.1.9    6 days ago
According to gop standards for evidence, all I need is to say 'someone said', or 'my friend John said.

Of course, that is exactly the GOP method, Can you believe they believed that lying bitch Ford? even after all her witnesses said that what she claimed didn't happen, they even went so far to say that not only that it didn't happen, the party didn't happen......But the GOP is notorious for pushing it.  

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.11  dennis smith  replied to  lib50 @2.1.3    5 days ago

An ongoing waste of time and taxpayer money as usual from the [deleted]

They are squealing like pigs about impeachment when they know it will never come to pass. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3  Paula Bartholomew    6 days ago

Bout damned time.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1  It Is ME  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3    6 days ago
Bout damned time.

" Possibly " ! jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
4  loki12    6 days ago

Holy Crap! The worthless fuck Jerry (dean Wormer) Nadler just put trump on double secret probation. The worthless POS is afraid the squad is going to primary him. There is nothing more to this. He is scrambling to save his job because he is afraid he might actually have to go to work.

 
 
 
lib50
4.1  lib50  replied to  loki12 @4    6 days ago

Afraid of what the investigation will uncover?  Or that we will all be talking about Trump's misdeeds and corruption?

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.1  loki12  replied to  lib50 @4.1    6 days ago

3 years latter and a failed special council..................Hows the Unicorn farm coming?

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.2  lib50  replied to  loki12 @4.1.1    5 days ago

I smelled a unicorn fart this morning.  There is a glimpse of a future focused on Trump/gop corruption and treason.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5  It Is ME    6 days ago

"We are examining the various malfeasances of the president with the view toward possibly , the possibility , of introducing, of recommending articles of impeachment to the House"

In other words …… Democrats don't have crap , but Democrats are gonna continue the crap anyway….. just for the crap of it ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lib50
5.1  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @5    6 days ago

They learned from the pros, thank conservatives.  Except this time Trump's corruption will be on full display.  Won't be easy to deflect from the daily swamp pus rising to the top.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.1  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @5.1    6 days ago

This is all about the election and the fact that the democratic presidential candidates all suck Michelle’s big one that for you fish.

 
 
 
lib50
5.1.2  lib50  replied to  MUVA @5.1.1    6 days ago

Does it burn to think that if Michelle had been a male her penis would have been so much bigger than Trump's?  Or that republicans can't get Trump's mouth off Putin's so they can get their turn?  Trying to get a handle on the dick obsession you have.  

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.3  loki12  replied to  lib50 @5.1.2    6 days ago

I know, can you believe that trump character? allowing Putin to annex Crimea! and then allowing Putin to bomb Americans in Syria, and then allowing Putin to interfere in the election.  Trumps just awful!

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @5.1    5 days ago
They learned from the pros, thank conservatives.

One "Bad" turn, deserves another I suppose ?

"Except this time Trump's corruption will be on full display."

The Dems have been trying to …. "display it"..... even before Trump was elected. Dems need to upgrade their TV's. We have HD Color now yaknow !

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.5  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @5.1.2    5 days ago

Now that’s funny I like you now probably much bigger.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  loki12 @5.1.3    5 days ago

allowing Putin to annex Crimea! and then allowing Putin to bomb Americans in Syria, and then allowing Putin to interfere in the election. 

Exactly! The way Trump allows Putin to repeatedly violate cease fires in Syria and then begs him to sign yet another worthless cease fire by offering even further concessions, is truly amazing.  Only a Putin puppet would do those things. 

 
 
 
loki12
6  loki12    6 days ago

Maybe Nadler can get McCabe to testify before he goes to Jail like he did Cohen?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
7  livefreeordie    5 days ago

The clown parade AKA the Democrat Congress continues to put on their circus to the amusement of only those who applaud their nonsense.

While I agree that Impeachment is purely a political act, engaging in impeachment solely because you lost an election only further destroys what's left of our Constitutional Republic

 
 
 
Tacos!
8  Tacos!    5 days ago

The way Nadler is going about this is just so slimy. They can't officially call it an impeachment inquiry because there is no political support for that. There is no political support because there is no evidence to support it. No one pursuing this has any credibility because they have been talking impeachment since before Trump was even elected and after two years of Russia investigation, they disregard the results.

It is obvious to most people now that this is purely a politically motivated fishing expedition . Only the most extreme die hard partisans still treat this as a just and fair investigation. 

 
 
 
loki12
8.1  loki12  replied to  Tacos! @8    5 days ago

With the hard hitting evidence....like, trump gets 2 scoops of ice cream, and everybody else only gets 1.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



CB
lib50


25 visitors