DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Impeachment: The Gauntlet

Lets start the 3rd thread with some crazy ass defense of trump:

Ex-Acting AG Matt Whitaker Offers Curious Trump Defense: 'Abuse Of Power Not A Crime'

https://news.yahoo.com/matt-whitaker-trump-impeachment-abuse-of-power.html

President Donald Trump is the subject of an ongoing impeachment inquiry for allegedly abusing his presidential power by seeking the help of a foreign government to further his own political agenda. But Matt Whitaker, Trump’s former acting attorney general, made a case for his ex-boss’ innocence during an interview with Fox News on Tuesday night.

“What evidence of a crime do you have? ... Abuse of power is not a crime,” Whitaker told host Laura Ingraham.

Whitaker added the U.S. Constitution is “very clear that this has to be some pretty egregious behavior.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) disseminated a “fact sheet” on Monday detailing some of the evidence Democrats have seen showing how Trump ― in Pelosi’s words ― “betrayed his oath of office” and “betrayed the integrity of our elections for his own personal political gain” in his dealings with the Ukrainian government.

The evidence cited in the document included a rough transcript of a July phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president in which Trump asked Volodymyr Zelensky to “do us a favor” by digging up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

The transcript “paints a damning picture of Trump abusing his office by pressing a foreign government to interfere in our 2020 elections,” Pelosi said.

“Abuse of power” is a broad term that can encompass a wide range of behaviors and actions, not all of them necessarily illegal. But according to legal scholars, Trump can still be impeached even if his conduct is not ultimately considered criminal.

Under the Constitution, a president can be impeached for treason and bribery, or “other high crimes and misdemeanors” ― a definition that is, on its own, hard to define.

“It’s meant to convey the idea that the person has badly flouted the terms of office. Even if he didn’t commit a criminal offense, did he do something that constitutes an abuse of power?” Corey Brettschneider, a political science professor at Brown University, told AP of the phrase.

Experts have also pointed out that Trump could be found guilty of a crime including bribery and extortion if it’s determined that he did have a quid pro quo with Ukraine ― something the president has vehemently denied.

Speaking to Ingraham about the impeachment probe, Whitaker suggested President Trump was “being punished” for upsetting “the apple cart” of the “world establishment.”

Ingraham agreed with this assessment.

“This is a revenge of the global elites,” she said.

___________

When this is the best argument out there in defense of trump.....it ain’t looking too good.

Do you think the Republican controlled Senate is going to vote to impeach Trump or is this just the Dems wasting time and money? Wouldn't it be nice if they worked for America instead of getting back in power.

Wouldn't it be nice if Trump wasn't such a POS? Then we could focus on all the legislation the house has passed and maybe get McConnell to take action for America instead of building his graveyard of Dem efforts to do their job.

Oh, how short our memory is. Have you forgotten the impeachment hearings and trial of Bill Clinton? What did he do again? Oh yeah, he lied about an affair. And, who led that impeachment? Newt Gingrich who had multiple affairs himself. The only "trial" Clinton should ever have gone through was with his wife. However, the Republicans wanted to rid him of office they spun it into lying under oath & obstruction of justice to suit their agenda.

How many times has Trump lied since taking office and how often have we seen an obstruction of justice with this admin?

Bro I love how when dems investigate they have to do it fast or it's a nothing burger, yet GOPers just cleared Hillary on emails and those investigations started in what 2014? And they like to had a cow over Benghazi, yet Trump abandons the kurds, leaves nukes in Turkey, turns the region over to Putin and GOPers are like: What? No biggie. smh

Silly Dems thinking its their job to protect the constitution.

That’s a question nobody has a definitive answer to.

Mitch McConnell JUST told republicans to defend trump against the process, not actually defend him based on the evidence.

Even a trump supporter like you must admit that when the senate majority leader, a republican, can’t defend trumps actual actions, that it doesn’t look good for the future of his presidency.

Law breaking GOP representatives storm closed-door impeachment inquiry this morning.

Didn’t someone tell Gaetz and the rest of America that only GOP committeee members are invited?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live...-latest-updates

What a bunch of unamerican loons. I wish they cared more about their country than protecting their party.

I'm just wondering if you asked that same question and made those same statements during the Bill Clinton impeachment process? Sometimes bringing the truth to light is not a waste of anything.

Bill Clinton was not removed from office but we all know what he did. I have no problem if Trump comes to the same fate.

You see, it's the duty of the congress to do this.

smh, deplorable

What? You mean "Don't pay attention to what norms and laws Trump is peeing all over - not to mention the constitution - and focus instead on Mitch McConnell and how many (over 400) Bills he is holding up?"

GOP lawmakers storm closed-door impeachment session, as Schiff walks out

House Republicans led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., on Wednesday essentially stormed a closed-door session connected to the impeachment investigation of President Trump, prompting House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to suspend the proceedings in a remarkable scene.

The standoff happened Wednesday morning after lawmakers held a press conference in which they accused House Democrats of lack of transparency.

“We’re going to try and go in there, and we’re going to try to figure out what’s going on, on behalf of the millions of Americans that we represent that want to see this Congress working for them and not obsess with attacking a president who we believe has not done anything to deserve impeachment,” Gaetz said.

The Republicans specifically called out Schiff, D-Calif., who is leading the investigation.

“What is Adam Schiff trying to hide?” asked House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La. “I think that’s the question so many people have, so many of my colleagues have, so many people in the press should have.”

“Voting members of Congress are being denied access from being able to see what’s happening behind these closed doors where they’re trying to impeach the president of the United States with a one-sided set of rules,” Scalise continued. “They call the witnesses. They don’t let anybody else call the witnesses.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-law...the-proceedings

Enough of this Farce!

Yes the alt-right Trump supporting GOP reps farce. Grow up GOPers. This is a constitutionally legal congressional oversight inquiry. This act is nothing more than an alternative burning of the flag or stomping the constitution... You know, the things that drive GOPers insane.

BTW - It was for show because after an hours long delay the hearing is underway. Farce GOP.

FOR ALL THOSE WHO THINK THE INQUIRY PROCESS IS UNFAIR:

Think of the House Inquiry as a secret grand jury called by the prosecutor to hear the facts from witnesses prior to handing down an indictment or in this case an impeachment. No offender or defense team for the offender is invited to participate a grand jury.

After the House makes the evidence public and holds a vote on rather or not to impeach Trump, if he is impeached the trial will be held in the Senate where he will be able to do all of the defending himself that he wants.

Please try to wrap around the fact that the House GOPers that are pulling these stunts are actually trying to interfere with due process by obstructing justice at Trump's orders. If you really want to help Trump avoid additional obstruction counts in the impeachment, you should call your Republican Reps and ask them to stop the stunts and nonsense because dems are focused and moving forward regardless.

Let me spell this out for you, 40.

The House Dems started an inquiry. This means they gather evidence for any wrong doing, Once evidence is collected, then the house votes on impeachment based on the evidence.

The current testimony format? This is modeled after the Benghazi hearings, and the GOP legislated these rules a few years back. If you’re angry about it, vote out the GOP who set these rules.

You and tons of others have said “where’s the evidence that Trump does...” so now they’re getting more evidence. The difference this time is that you can’t control the narrative, and this obviously upsets you.

Trump will get his day in court if the house votes for impeachment. The evidence will speak for itself, and these feelings over facts nonsense will stop.

Take your ball and go home. If you want a different process, I hear Russia does well with protecting anti-democratic oligarchs.

I also await the 30 representatives from today to get charged with the misdemeanor they deserve as by Federal Law for the stunt they pulled today.

I also hope all of you are aware these “secret” meetings contain an equal amount of GOP committee members.

They are not being told they have GOP members in the hearings... they are just sheep parroting the grand poobah shepherd. If the GOP members included were hearing exculpatory evidence, you can bet your ass they would leak it.

In fact, Bill Taylor's testimony was so damning that the GOP can only attack the process because they are starting to distance themselves from Trump. I just want to point that out in case Trump supporters don't see it. Those were McConnells walking orders. Attack the process. Not the witnesses, not the charges, not the facts... It doesn't take a political science or legal degree to see why.

There is a mix of Republicans and Democrats on the committee and viewing all of the testimony as it is. That's something you certainly don't wish to discuss.

They knew this was wrong and against the rules and it was nothing more than a publicity stunt.

[img]https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t...amp;oe=5E57F04B[/img]

I said this in the last thread, there is no way that a Republican key player, will ever be deposed under oath. Rudy, Pompeo, Barr, and possibly Pence and their associates would have their words and facts checked. No one on team Trump wants that to occur.

ahh this again...

Please explain, Knight.

You're just jealous that you don't get your own planet when you die.

They are bipartisan committees. The proceeding is in the house by the rules set up by the republicans during Benghazi.

The dems control the house, thus the hearing. You lost the house majority, get over it

Judge tells State Dept. to begin producing Ukraine records

The documents were requested by an ethics watchdog that is investigating the administration.

By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A judge on Wednesday ordered the State Department to begin producing within 30 days documents related to the Trump administration's dealings with Ukraine, saying the records were of obvious public interest.

The documents were sought under a Freedom of Information Act request by American Oversight, an ethics watchdog that investigates the administration. Any release of government documents could shed new light on President Donald Trump's efforts to prod his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden, the matter at the heart of the Democrat-led House impeachment inquiry.

"These records concern a matter of immense public importance," Daniel McGrath, a lawyer for American Oversight, said during arguments in Washington's federal court. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper said he agreed.

Cooper encouraged the organization to work with the government to identify which documents can be released because they are not classified or otherwise exempt from disclosure. That could potentially include any correspondence with Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer and a key participant in a backchannel diplomacy effort with Ukraine, since he is not an administration official.

"His emails, text messages — which he showed on TV — are going to be subject to public disclosure with limited redactions," Austin Evers, the organization's executive director, told reporters after the hearing. "It's possible that this administration will jump through some legal hoops to try to withhold them, but we have the court today urging the parties to focus on those communications as top priority."

He described the judge's ruling as "a crack in the administration's stone wall."

Among the records the group asked for are documents related to interactions between Giuliani and Ukraine, as well as documents about the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

The government has said it does not know how many records could be covered by the ruling. Lawyers said they have identified thousands of potential hits for documents related to Giuliani and Yovanovitch, but that could include duplicates as well as attachments.

Meanwhile, three committees leading the impeachment investigation are asking the State Department for documents they say are central to the probe's "core area of investigation" after the department defied a subpoena to provide them.

The House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform panels said in a letter Wednesday that they have "now obtained detailed information identifying specific documents" in the department's custody. They include written readouts of meetings and conversations that are part of the inquiry, as well as emails, texts and diplomatic cables.

The committees are investigating Trump's requests for Ukraine to investigate Biden's family and actions by Democrats in the 2016 election.

The panels wrote that they "may draw the inference that their nonproduction indicates that these documents support the allegations against the president and others."

Evers said his organization was committed to helping the American public see the same type of documents that the State Department has yet to produce to Congress.

If Secretary of State Mike Pompeo "wants to fight so hard" to keep records out of the hands of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, "we're happy to be in court," Evers said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-...ecords-n1070966

Ukraine president knew Trump wanted Biden probe back in May: report

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky was worried about how to deal with pressure from the Trump administration to investigate Joe Biden in early May — about two weeks before he was inaugurated, a new report said Wednesday.

Zelensky had gathered a small group of advisers on May 7 in Kiev for a meeting that was supposed to be about his nation’s energy needs.

Instead, the group spent most of the three-hour discussion talking about how to navigate President Trump’s and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s calls for a probe into Biden, The Associated Press reported, citing a trio of sources familiar with the details of the meeting.

The meeting came about two weeks after Trump called to offer his congratulations on the night of the Ukrainian leader’s April 21 election.

The full details of what the two leaders discussed in that Easter Sunday phone call have never been publicly disclosed, and it is not clear whether Trump asked for an investigation of the Bidens.

The sources’ memories differ on whether Zelensky specifically cited that first call with Trump as the source of his unease.

But their accounts all show the Ukrainian president-elect was wary of Trump’s push for an investigation into the former vice president and his son Hunter’s business dealings with Burisma Holdings, an energy giant in Ukraine.

Either way, the newly elected leader of a country wedged between Russia and the US-aligned NATO democracies knew early on that vital military support might depend on whether he was willing to choose a side in an American political tussle.

A former comedian who won office on promises to clean up corruption, Zelensky’s first major foreign policy test came not from his enemy Russia, but rather from the country’s most important ally, the US.

The May 7 meeting included two of his top aides, Andriy Yermak and Andriy Bohdan, the sources said.

Also in the room was Andriy Kobolyev, head of the state-owned natural gas company Naftogaz, and Amos Hochstein, an American who sits on the Ukrainian company’s supervisory board.

Hochstein is a former diplomat who advised Biden on Ukraine matters during the Obama administration.

Zelensky’s office in Kiev did not respond to messages on Wednesday seeking comment.

The White House would not comment on whether Trump demanded an investigation in the April 21 call.

The White House has offered only a short public readout on the April call, saying Trump urged Zelensky and the Ukrainian people to implement reforms, increase prosperity and “root out corruption.”

In the intervening months, Trump and his supporters have frequently used the word “corruption” to reference the months-long efforts to get the Ukrainians to investigate Democrats.

Trump has said he would release a transcript of the first call, but the White House had no comment Wednesday on when, or if, that might happen, AP reported.

After news broke that a White House whistleblower had filed a complaint about his July 25 call with Zelensky, Trump said the conversation was “perfect” and that he had asked his Ukrainian counterpart to do “whatever he can in terms of corruption because the corruption is massive.”

During the call, Trump asked Zelensky for “a favor” and then told him he should investigate Biden and his son.

Trump then advised Zelensky that Giuliani and Attorney General Bill Barr would be contacting him about the request, according to a summary of the called released by the White House.

Within days, Giuliani flew to Madrid to meet privately with Yermak, Zelenskiy’s aide who was in the May 7 meeting.

Trump has denied that an investigation of Biden was a condition for releasing military aid as a quid pro quo, and the nearly $400 million in aid was released on Sept. 11.

But on Tuesday, the senior US diplomat in Ukraine at the time, Ambassador William Taylor, contradicted the president, saying that Trump had demanded that everything Zelensky wanted, including the aid and a White House meeting, was conditional on a public vow that he would open an investigation into the Bidens and the 2016 election.

The president reportedly believes in an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine and not Russia that meddled in the 2016 election.

Taylor also detailed multiple previously undisclosed diplomatic interactions between Trump’s envoys and senior Ukrainian officials in which the president’s demand to investigate the Bidens in exchange for American aid was clear.

In a joint Sept. 25 news conference with Trump at the UN, Zelensky denied he felt pressured to investigate the Bidens.

“I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved, to democratic, open elections of USA,” the Ukrainian leader said.

“We had, I think, good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things, and I think, and you read it, that nobody push it. Push me.”

Trump added: “In other words, no pressure.”

Before Zelensky was elected, however, a public campaign to initiate investigations into the Bidens was already underway.

One day before Zelensky’s May 7 meeting with his advisers, the State Department on Trump’s orders recalled Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, a career diplomat with a reputation for combating corruption.

Yovanovitch had been the target of a sustained yearlong campaign by Giuliani and his associates, who wanted her gone.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported Wednesday that Ukrainian officials knew the military aid was being withheld in early August, not a month later, as the White House had contended.

https://nypost.com/2019/10/23/ukraine-president-knew-trump-wanted-biden-probe-back-in-may-report/

"The Associated Press reported, citing a trio of sources familiar with the details of the meeting"

Who are the sources?

Ask the AP bro. I just posted the article.

I was in my early 20's then, playing in bar bands, hanging out at strip clubs, and getting drunk most weekends.

I didn't care at all about politics, much less any impeachment hearings, and felt I couldn't pass judgement on Bill because I was doing more in-between sets in the parking lot.

Go Billy Go!!!!

Can’t read English? A Trio. Tres hombres amigo. Uno, Dos, & Tres,

Never let facts get in the way of Whining Trump claiming to be a victim.

Trump allies mull how to quickly quash impeachment articles

President Trump’s biggest allies in the Senate are looking to quickly quash articles of impeachment that the Democratic-controlled House might pass in the coming months.

The possible GOP strategy would swiftly dismiss impeachment following an extensive House inquiry that is investigating whether Trump tried to leverage aid to get Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Wednesday he will introduce a resolution condemning the House process, and he’s urging the Senate to quickly dismiss any articles of impeachment instead of holding a weeks-long trial.

“In my view, if this process continues, there’s not a formal inquiry … then that would be illegitimate,” Graham said, referring to the House’s reluctance to hold a formal impeachment inquiry vote.

Republicans, who believe it is likely the House will impeach Trump, are weighing what is best for their party: a rapid dismissal of impeachment or a vote to acquit Trump after a trial. Sixty-seven votes are needed to convict a president.

Graham first floated the idea of discarding articles of impeachment during an interview this week with Fox News’s Sean Hannity, where he argued the Senate should go “on record condemning the House.”

“Here’s the point of the resolution: Any impeachment vote based on this process, to me, is illegitimate, is unconstitutional, and should be dismissed in the Senate without a trial,” Graham said.

The push to promptly dismiss any articles sent by the House comes as Republicans have homed in on the process being used by House Democrats. The chamber is weeks into their impeachment inquiry, which is being overseen by the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight and Reform committees.

The closed-door sessions have sparked a constant churn of headline-grabbing news. But Republicans have fumed as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has refused to hold an inquiry vote — something she says isn’t required by the rules. House Republicans opted to vote for an impeachment inquiry during their investigation of President Clinton.

Republicans have noted repeatedly that the House probe has been behind closed doors and most members are unable to sit in on the ongoing depositions. Frustrated House Republicans stormed a closed-door hearing Wednesday to protest the Democrats’ probe, delaying the proceedings and triggering a fresh round of partisan finger-pointing.

Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), another vocal ally of Trump’s, threw his support behind Graham’s idea and compared the House impeachment inquiry process to how an investigation would be run in Russia.

“I would absolutely support that given the way this is being conspired in the House,” Perdue said. “What we’re getting is a show trial right now, so when it comes to the Senate, the Senate has an opportunity, I think, to push back on that.”

Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, has also backed the Senate dismissing any articles of impeachment, telling The Hill earlier this month that it would be “horrible” if the Senate held a trial.

“It would probably be dismissed immediately,” he said.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said it isn’t clear to him if senators can bring up the vote but “if the articles don’t come up with any evidence, I suppose we could do that.”

“I could see a scenario where there’s no evidence to even support what they’ve done, and perhaps at that point a motion to dismiss would be in order and we do,” he added.

During former President Clinton’s impeachment trial, Graham — then a House member who served as a floor manager — spoke out against a motion to dismiss that was offered by then-Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). Byrd’s motion ultimately failed.

“To dismiss an impeachment trial under these facts and under these circumstances would be unbelievable, in my opinion, and do a lot of damage to the law and to the ultimate decision this body has to make whether or not Bill Clinton should be our president. And as I understand the general nature of the law, the facts and the law break our way for this motion,” Graham said, according to a transcript of the deliberations.

Under the Senate’s rules governing impeachment, any senator can make a motion and any motion, except a motion to adjourn, will be made in writing. House managers or the president’s team, according to the same rules, can also direct “all motions, objections, requests, or applications” to the presiding officer, who would be Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Motions made during the trial would need a majority to pass. With 53 Senate Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could only afford to lose two GOP senators. Normally for simple majority votes in the Senate, he can lose three because Vice President Pence is able to break a tie when he presides over the chamber.

A Senate GOP leadership aide noted in a memo about the Senate’s impeachment rules that a motion to dismiss would be in order.

“Please note that a motion to dismiss the articles is in order under impeachment rules, and a majority vote on the motion to dismiss occurred during the impeachment trial of President Clinton (following the opening arguments and a limited period of questioning by members of the Senate),” the aide wrote.

GOP senators have discussed impeachment during closed-door caucus lunches over the past two weeks. McConnell and staff gave a PowerPoint presentation last week where the possibility of dismissing any articles of impeachment came up as a question.

But the chatter about trying to dismiss any articles of impeachment is at odds with signals from leadership officials, who have increasingly said they expect the chamber to hold a trial if the House passes articles of impeachment.

“I think a trial is more likely,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of leadership, when asked about Graham’s remarks.

He added that it would be up to Roberts to determine if a motion could be voted on at any point.

“In the last trial Sen. Byrd somehow made the motion and I don’t understand how he did because I would expect it would more likely come from the people presenting the case,” Blunt added.

McConnell, after last week’s closed-door briefing, shot down a question from a reporter about if his Facebook ads positioning himself as an impeachment roadblock meant there wouldn’t be a Senate trial.

“Under the impeachment rules of the Senate, we’ll take the matter up. The chief justice will be in the chair ... We intend to do our constitutional responsibility,” McConnell said.

Asked this week if he would try to dismiss the articles of impeachment, McConnell said that he won’t have “ball control” during an impeachment trial.

“It won’t be up to me. Unlike other procedures in the Senate, the majority leader does not really have ball control here. ... I don’t see anybody in all of this, myself or others, who would be able to control the process. At some point, it ends,” he said.

Pressed if he would support a quick dismissal, McConnell demurred, arguing that “there are all kinds of potentials.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4672...chment-articles

No low too low. Trump caught with his hand in the cookie jar and these weasels don't even want to have a trial!

That choir is predictably very white.

and they sing out of tune, too.

I've seen them try to dance too. No rhythm what so ever.

Graham lashes out at impeachment inquiry: 'If we were doing this, you'd be beating the crap out of us'


Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., didn't mince words at a news conference on Thursday as he touted his resolution formally condemning House Democrats' impeachment inquiry, saying the proceedings defy historical precedent and deny fundamental "due process" to the White House.

"If we were doing this, you'd be beating the ---- out of us," Graham bluntly told a reporter at one point, accusing Democrats of selectively leaking testimony from their closed-door hearings, without affording Republicans the opportunity to subpoena or publicly cross-examine witnesses. "And, I think it says a lot about people in your business, with all due respect."

He continued: "We're not telling the House they can't impeach the president. What we're telling the House is, there's a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it. ... This is one part legal, and two parts politics."

Graham, who said his resolution had 41 Republican cosponsors "and climbing," noted that 31 Democrats had voted to open an impeachment inquiry into Bill Clinton in 1998. But, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has refused to hold a vote on beginning proceedings against President Trump, and instead unilaterally announced that the inquiry had begun.

The move to put House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., in charge of the inquiry was only a small part of Democrats' "substantial deviation from what the House has done in the past," Graham asserted, noting that the Judiciary Committee has typically handled impeachment probes.

Seeking to bolster his commitment to administrative fairness, Graham noted that he previously supported legislation that would have protected then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller from being terminated by Trump.

"The attempt to open an inquiry into the impeachment of President Trump failed miserably, so they've created a new process, which I think is very dangerous for the country," Graham told reporters.

Top House Republicans send letter to Rep. Adam Schiff pressing for whistleblower to testify publiclyVideo
Graham's resolution specifically called on the House to vote immediately to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry; and demanded that the House "provide President Trump, like every other American, with due process, to include the ability to confront his accusers, call witnesses on his behalf, and have a basic understanding of the accusations against him that would form any basis for impeachment."

The resolution also "calls on the House of Representatives to provide members of the minority with the ability to participate fully in all proceedings and have equal authority to issue subpoenas and other compulsory process."

In his own statement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced he would cosponsor's Graham's resolution, and outlined what he characterized as Democrats' transgressions.

"Unlike the House’s actions during investigations of both President Nixon and President Clinton, this House majority is denying President Trump important rights and due process protections," McConnell wrote. "House Democrats are even denying their own Republican colleagues basic procedural rights that the minority party was granted throughout previous impeachments."

The impeachment inquiry has been led by three committees made up of both Democrats and Republicans, but members of Congress not on those committees have not had access to any of the sensitive documents or interviews relating to the probe. Republicans also have not had co-equal power to subpoena witnesses or pursue evidence in the probe.

"If we pulled this stunt, you'd be eating us alive," Graham said at the news conference. "How many people have asked me about [diplomat] Bill Taylor's opening statement? If we had Rudy Giuliani's opening statement, and he said he did nothing wrong, I doubt that you would accept that. 47 Republican House members feel like it's not working for them. They feel like [Kurt] Volker's testimony has been selectively released, [Rep. John] Ratcliffe's cross-examination of Taylor is not available to you. ... There's a way to do it."

Graham also defended the White House's shifting responses to the impeachment inquiry -- capped by the administration's announcement that it would not cooperate at all.

"I know this sounds weird, but Clinton -- look what he did. He had a team that was organized, had legal minds that could understand what was being said ... and they were on message every day. President Clinton defended himself, but he never stopped being president, and I think one of the reasons he survived is that the public may not have liked what the president had done, but believed that he was still able to do his job."

Just hours after the Republicans stormed Cooper's deposition, House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, separately kept the pressure on Democrats by pushing for more transparency -- including public testimony from the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment probe.

In an initial letter to Schiff on Wednesday, Jordan -- joined by House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Michael McCaul, R-Texas -- called for the whistleblower to come out of hiding, so that his or her "sources and credibility" could be "fully assessed."

The committee chairs noted that Schiff previously had promised that the whistleblower would provide "unfiltered" testimony "very soon" concerning an Aug. 12 complaint.

But, the Republicans charged, Schiff abruptly "reversed course" after reports of the whistleblower's potential political bias emerged, along with evidence that congressional committee staff had spoken to the whistleblower before the complaint was filed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/graham-resolution-condemning-impeachment-inquiry-lashes-out

Lindsey Graham really needs to come out of that closet.

jc

for the MAGA hatters whining about the impeachment inquiry process from the Dems, guess who wrote the current rules that the Dems are following?

thats right, the republicans made these rules in 2015. now all of a sudden people got a problem when its being used against them.

The Dems are making the rules up as they go.

If only they would follow the procedures set up for them.