The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[Magox]

Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...if I remember correctly, he statement was, "found no EVIDENCE of political bias".......BUT...later on, I believe he qualified his statement as, "but I cannot rule out that it does not EXIST"......and this qualifier was pretty much swept under the rug ("convenient omission")...............a real shocker (COUGH)....

Yes.  That’s what Horowitz went on to clarify in the Senate hearings.

 

Proving systemic bias is a high bar from a technical standpoint but I think a lot of people understand that some of the key players had their own political biases and it’s laughable to suggest that their clear biases didn’t contribute to the 17 errors that Horowitz found.   
 

If this evidence was put forward in a court of law with jurors that bias they displayed would have been damning circumstantial evidence to go along with those “errors”

[3rdnlng]

11 minutes ago, Magox said:

Yes.  That’s what Horowitz went on to clarify in the Senate hearings.

 

Proving systemic bias is a high bar from a technical standpoint but I think a lot of people understand that some of the key players had their own political biases and it’s laughable to suggest that their clear biases didn’t contribute to the 17 errors that Horowitz found.   
 

If this evidence was put forward in a court of law with jurors that bias they displayed would have been damning circumstantial evidence to go along with those “errors”

Horowitz was also handicapped in his investigation. He, by law couldn't force anyone not still in the FBI or DOJ to be interviewed. All he could really do was to provide information to those in the DOJ who had some teeth to go with their own investigations. Simply put, Horowitz can read Peter and Lisa's emails just like the rest of us. He just couldn't ask them what they meant by preventing Trump from gaining the presidency or their "insurance policy". That'll be the job for Huber and Durham.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

22 minutes ago, Magox said:

Yes.  That’s what Horowitz went on to clarify in the Senate hearings.

 

Proving systemic bias is a high bar from a technical standpoint but I think a lot of people understand that some of the key players had their own political biases and it’s laughable to suggest that their clear biases didn’t contribute to the 17 errors that Horowitz found.   
 

If this evidence was put forward in a court of law with jurors that bias they displayed would have been damning circumstantial evidence to go along with those “errors”

Bodies were left in the wake of this investigation, with people off to jail for a long time.  The reputation of the FBI/DOJ is in tatters, and we’ve learned for the 457th time that when given unfettered power and access and ability to operate in the shadows, the people in charge are corrupt/corruptable and seek to create the world as they want it to be. 
 

It seems clear to me that the system is designed to protect the corrupt, at least insofar as the IG needed a memo on FBI letterhead signed by everyone involved with a declaration of actual bias to acknowledge same. That does not surprise me—one of the problems with govt is that the structure provides fertile ground for corruption. Tough to get fired, multiple layers of redundancy, virtually guaranteed lifetime income, unlimited funding, and the kicker—its never going out of business and has no competition. 
 

Agree with everything you’ve said. 

[row_33]

When this is wrapped up we can all focus on the thrilling Dem primaries, there’s nothing else for the Dems to do but bobsled right into November 

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

Trumps actions constantly live right up against the lines of impeachable grounds but from my view are not clearly impeachable.  Therefore they shouldn’t have been brought up by Democrats.  Mistake.

 

What gives me sympathy for the man (Trump)  which is a hard thing to do because from a personal level I don’t like the guy is that the media has gone from being biased to completely devoid of impartiality and have bankrupted themselves from their journalistic responsibilities.

 

I haven’t seen hardly any coverage of the FISA judge rebuke of the FBI, the way they reported the Horowitz findings with headlines blaring “no political” bias as being their main takeaway is embarrassing.   The main finding was that the FBI screwed up and improperly investigated a presidential candidate.

 

And to this day it’s almost unbelievable how wrong they got it with the Russian collusion deal and they simply don’t care. 
 

Objective journalism is dead, the for profit model of pandering to each party’s base is what drives it. Those that report objectively have no core following, therefore it’s not good business and that is lamentable.

 

 

In regards to Nancy’s gambit to withhold the impeachment articles is yet another stupid decision on their part.   Does she really think that she is going to outmaneuver Mitch?   Mitch has the leverage and even though I know he isn’t popular with the base the dude is a political wizard and he’s laughing while this clown show from house democrats.

good points

 

what profits for the liberal national news? Their bias is slaughtering them with massive layoffs weekly

 

 

[3rdnlng]

[Doc]

Horowitz could find no political bias because no one admitted it directly to him (shocker!).  But the bias was obvious in texts and actions. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Doc

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Horowitz was also handicapped in his investigation. He, by law couldn't force anyone not still in the FBI or DOJ to be interviewed. All he could really do was to provide information to those in the DOJ who had some teeth to go with their own investigations. Simply put, Horowitz can read Peter and Lisa's emails just like the rest of us. He just couldn't ask them what they meant by preventing Trump from gaining the presidency or their "insurance policy". That'll be the job for Huber and Durham.

 

...and he has the horsepower....looks like a nasty SOB......BUT...be assured if his findings include criminal indictments, he'll be labeled a "partisan political hack (bet the label is in for print)" despite being assigned several high profile matters by former AG(COUGH) Eric Holder as a US Attorney......the same Holder who said he was "Obama's wingman" while criticizing AG Barr as beholden to Trump......Holder and Comey should be cell mates.......

Edited December 22, 2019 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[B-Man]

 

 

Why Senate Democrats are the real challenge to full impeachment trial

By Jonathan Turley

 

When Shakespeare wrote that “All the world’s a stage … and one man in his time plays many parts,” he could have had in mind Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). In 1999, Schumer famously opposed witnesses in the trial of President Bill Clinton as nothing more than “political theater.” Now Schumer has declared that witnesses and a full trial are essential for President Donald Trump, and that any trial without witnesses would be the “most unfair impeachment trial in modern history.”

 

Of course, that would not include the Clinton trial, where Schumer sought to proceed to a summary vote without a trial. As the Senate gears up for only the third presidential impeachment in history, the fight has begun over the rules and scope of a Senate trial. The Framers were silent on the expected procedures and evidence for a Senate trial, beyond the requirement of a two-thirds supermajority to convict a president. The only direct precedent on these issues is derived from two very different trials, of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

 

By sending a thin, incomplete record to the Senate, the House of Representatives could not have made things easier for the White House. Since the House did not want to take time to subpoena critical witnesses (such as former national security adviser John Bolton) or to compel testimony of other witnesses, the Senate could declare that it will try the case on the record supplied by House Democrats, a record that Democrats insist is already conclusive and overwhelming. Moreover, in reviewing those earlier trials of Johnson and Clinton, Democrats may have to struggle with precedents of their own making. Indeed, Republicans could argue that a trial without witnesses is impeachment Democratic-style.

 

 

The first question for trial could be whether there should be a trial at all. In early English impeachments, the House of Lords often refused to hold trials on impeachments, which often were raw political exercises. In the Clinton trial, Democrats moved to dismiss both impeachment articles as meritless. The motion by then-Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) failed on a largely party-line vote of 56–44, with Democrats – including then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Schumer – opposing any trial at all.

 

Ironically, at least one of the Trump impeachment articles – the obstruction of Congress claim – would make a stronger case for such a threshold dismissal. The House adopted an abbreviated investigation in order to impeach by Christmas. President Trump has challenged congressional demands for testimony and documents in court; Presidents Clinton and Richard Nixon both took such appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, where they lost. I disagree with Trump’s assertions of immunity and privilege. However, the House has taken the position that it can set an artificially short period of investigation and impeach a president who goes to court instead of simply yielding to Congress’s demands.

 

Such a theory would allow members of Congress to effectively manufacture the grounds for impeachment by setting brief investigations and then impeaching when presidents turn to the courts. 

 

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

 

 

[DC Tom]

41 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Why Senate Democrats are the real challenge to full impeachment trial

By Jonathan Turley

 

When Shakespeare wrote that “All the world’s a stage … and one man in his time plays many parts,” he could have had in mind Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). In 1999, Schumer famously opposed witnesses in the trial of President Bill Clinton as nothing more than “political theater.” Now Schumer has declared that witnesses and a full trial are essential for President Donald Trump, and that any trial without witnesses would be the “most unfair impeachment trial in modern history.”

 

Of course, that would not include the Clinton trial, where Schumer sought to proceed to a summary vote without a trial. As the Senate gears up for only the third presidential impeachment in history, the fight has begun over the rules and scope of a Senate trial. The Framers were silent on the expected procedures and evidence for a Senate trial, beyond the requirement of a two-thirds supermajority to convict a president. The only direct precedent on these issues is derived from two very different trials, of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

 

By sending a thin, incomplete record to the Senate, the House of Representatives could not have made things easier for the White House. Since the House did not want to take time to subpoena critical witnesses (such as former national security adviser John Bolton) or to compel testimony of other witnesses, the Senate could declare that it will try the case on the record supplied by House Democrats, a record that Democrats insist is already conclusive and overwhelming. Moreover, in reviewing those earlier trials of Johnson and Clinton, Democrats may have to struggle with precedents of their own making. Indeed, Republicans could argue that a trial without witnesses is impeachment Democratic-style.

 

 

The first question for trial could be whether there should be a trial at all. In early English impeachments, the House of Lords often refused to hold trials on impeachments, which often were raw political exercises. In the Clinton trial, Democrats moved to dismiss both impeachment articles as meritless. The motion by then-Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) failed on a largely party-line vote of 56–44, with Democrats – including then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Schumer – opposing any trial at all.

 

Ironically, at least one of the Trump impeachment articles – the obstruction of Congress claim – would make a stronger case for such a threshold dismissal. The House adopted an abbreviated investigation in order to impeach by Christmas. President Trump has challenged congressional demands for testimony and documents in court; Presidents Clinton and Richard Nixon both took such appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, where they lost. I disagree with Trump’s assertions of immunity and privilege. However, the House has taken the position that it can set an artificially short period of investigation and impeach a president who goes to court instead of simply yielding to Congress’s demands.

 

Such a theory would allow members of Congress to effectively manufacture the grounds for impeachment by setting brief investigations and then impeaching when presidents turn to the courts. 

 

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

 

 

Ever notice that any position a Democrat takes can be refused by a quote from that same Democrat?  

[/dev/null]

20 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Ever notice that any position a Democrat takes can be refused by a quote from that same Democrat?  

 

Democrats are kinda like Schrodingers Cat

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, /dev/null said:

 

Democrats are kinda like Schrodingers Cat

 

You don't know if they're alive or dead until you open a box and kill them?  

[B-Man]

 

 

VIDEO: Stammering, Blabbering, Stuttering Pelosi Tries to Explain the Impeachment Delay.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Doc]

The Republicans don't care what you say either, Nancy.  Either put up or shut up.

[row_33]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

The Republicans don't care what you say either, Nancy.  Either put up or shut up.

the worse things they say about Trump, the more he smiles and knows he is winning

 

 

[Doc Brown]

On 12/21/2019 at 10:43 AM, DC Tom said:

 

Except in six years they had those chances, and they didn't.  Not only that, they explicitly stated they wouldn't because it would strengthen Obama politically, and they were better off working through normal Congressional checks and balances.  And that's despite having a case for "obstruction of Congress" and "abuse of power" that was easily as strong as the case against Trump.

The main difference is Obama's likability was always higher than his approval rating (similar to Bill Clinton) so it would've been foolish for the Republicans to try.  Instead they just targeted him with Benghazi investigations before quickly turning to Hillary after he won reelection knowing she was the likely 2016 candidate. Trump on the other hand isn't liked by a majority of the public so the Dems felt it was a risk worth taking.  We'll see how it shakes out.  

[Nanker]

8 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

VIDEO: Stammering, Blabbering, Stuttering Pelosi Tries to Explain the Impeachment Delay.

 

 

 

 

 

.

I wonder what the Internet psychologists who think Trump is mentally unfit and should be removed from office think about stuttering stammering negative Nancy. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

The main difference is Obama's likability was always higher than his approval rating (similar to Bill Clinton) so it would've been foolish for the Republicans to try.  Instead they just targeted him with Benghazi investigations before quickly turning to Hillary after he won reelection knowing she was the likely 2016 candidate. Trump on the other hand isn't liked by a majority of the public so the Dems felt it was a risk worth taking.  We'll see how it shakes out.  

Benghazi was a clusterf&*$ and there is not a political party ever that would not have launched an investigation.  Obama and his team mishandled it badly, left an Ambassador to die and created a false narrative in the aftermath to influence voters by fanning the flames of hatred against Lybians.  Had there been a functioning, independent press to call him out on it when it mattered, who know what might have happened to his likability. 
 

Impeachment inquiries were not launched because they were not launched.  That’s the fact.

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Benghazi was a clusterf&*$ and there is not a political party ever that would not have launched an investigation.  Obama and his team mishandled it badly, left an Ambassador to die and created a false narrative in the aftermath to influence voters by fanning the flames of hatred against Lybians.  Had there been a functioning, independent press to call him out on it when it mattered, who know what might have happened to his likability. 
 

Impeachment inquiries were not launched because they were not launched.  That’s the fact.

what we did to Libya is unspeakable.

[Deranged Rhino]

50 minutes ago, Foxx said:

what we did to Libya is unspeakable.

The democrats have longed to reopen the open-air slave markets which Republicans closed down in the 19th century. They got their wish with HRC’s agenda in Libya.