Trump faces two deadlines as U.S. Congress ramps up impeachment focus

[webfact]

Trump faces two deadlines as U.S. Congress ramps up impeachment focus

By David Morgan

 

U.S. President Donald Trump holds a campaign rally in Sunrise, Florida, U.S., November 26, 2019. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump faced two deadlines in Congress this week as Democrats prepared to shift the focus of their impeachment inquiry from fact-finding to the consideration of possible charges of misconduct over his dealings with Ukraine.

 

The Democratic-led House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, tasked with considering charges known as articles of impeachment, has given Trump until 6 p.m. (2300 GMT) on Sunday to say whether he or his legal counsel will participate in an impeachment hearing on Wednesday.

 

The first-in-a-series of expected Judiciary proceedings will hear testimony on the impeachment process established under the U.S. Constitution from a panel of legal experts that has yet to be named.

 

Hearings before the committee, which has responsibility for crafting any formal charges against Trump, are a major step toward possible charges. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will make the final decision, has not yet said whether the Republican president should be impeached. But in a letter to supporters last week, she called for him to be held accountable for his actions.

 

Trump has denied any wrongdoing, calling the impeachment inquiry a "witch hunt." The White House has not yet indicated whether it will take part in the committee proceedings.

 

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler also set a 5 p.m. (2200 GMT) Friday deadline for Trump to say whether he will mount a defense at further proceedings expected next week to examine evidence against him.

 

Three investigating panels, led by the House Intelligence Committee, are due to release a formal report this week when lawmakers return on Tuesday from a Thanksgiving recess. The report will outline evidence gathered by the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees.

 

Members of the intelligence panel will review the report in a classified setting on Monday evening, and the full committee will consider and vote on it on Tuesday before forwarding it to the Judiciary Committee, according to an Intelligence Committee official and a person familiar with the matter.

 

'MAY WANT TO HEAR FROM BOLTON'

Congressional investigators have been looking into whether Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to launch investigations of former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden, who is running to unseat him in the 2020 presidential election, and a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

 

Representative Doug Collins, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview with "Fox News Sunday" that the White House would mount a defense during upcoming impeachment proceedings and suggested calling Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the Intelligence Committee, as a witness.

 

In a separate interview on ABC's "This Week," another Judiciary Committee Republican, Representative Tom McClintock, suggested the possibility that Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, should testify.

 

Representative Hakeem Jeffries, a member of the House Democratic leadership and the Judiciary Committee, told "Fox News Sunday:" "We all may want to hear from John Bolton. We all would like to hear from Mick Mulvaney."

 

In September, Trump fired Bolton as national security adviser, citing policy disagreements.

 

The president and his Republican allies in Congress say the inquiry has been rushed and unfair to Trump by not allowing the White House to have legal counsel present or call witnesses during weeks of closed-door testimony and open hearings before the House Intelligence Committee.

 

Republican lawmakers were able to question witnesses during the closed hearings, however, and called three witnesses during public hearings that wrapped up last week.

 

"The president may well look at this, or his counsel may well look at this, and say: Why would we want to get in here and legitimize this process, when it was made illegitimate at the beginning by shutting us out?" said Republican Representative Tom Cole.

 

The House Judiciary Committee could vote on whether to recommend articles of impeachment within the next two weeks, setting the stage of a possible impeachment vote by the full House before Christmas, according to Democratic aides.

 

If the House impeaches Trump, the Republican-controlled Senate would hold a trial to determine whether he should be removed from office. Senate Republicans have shown little appetite for removing Trump.

 

(Reporting by David Morgan, Richard Cowan and Andrea Shalal; Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle, Jonathan Landay and Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Nick Zieminski and Peter Cooney)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-12-02

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

I think he missed today’s deadline and I’m not in the least surprised he has absolutely no defense so he will smear deflect and try play the victim typical trump 

[TopDeadSenter]

2 minutes ago, Tug said:

he has absolutely no defense

No defense against the invisible and unheard evidence? or no defense against the presumptions, assumptions, and smears? This farce is a total disaster for the democrats, long may it drag on.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

No defense against the invisible and unheard evidence? or no defense against the presumptions, assumptions, and smears? This farce is a total disaster for the democrats, long may it drag on.

You mean like the phone call in which Trump denied any quid pro quo? The phone call of which there is no record at the White House switchboard? Not that the alleged denial was ever worth much. Especially as we now know that Trump knew of the whistleblower complaint before.

[thaibeachlovers]

53 minutes ago, webfact said:

consideration of possible charges

 

53 minutes ago, webfact said:

a major step toward possible charges.

 

54 minutes ago, webfact said:

Nancy Pelosi, who will make the final decision, has not yet said whether the Republican president should be impeached. But in a letter to supporters last week, she called for him to be held accountable for his actions.

 

55 minutes ago, webfact said:

The House Judiciary Committee could vote

 

55 minutes ago, webfact said:

setting the stage of a possible impeachment

Possible, possible, held accountable, could, possible.

They don't seem very committed on an actual impeachment, LOL.

 

58 minutes ago, webfact said:

Senate Republicans have shown little appetite for removing Trump.

Says it all!

 

Nothing to fear.

[Tug]

15 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

No defense against the invisible and unheard evidence? or no defense against the presumptions, assumptions, and smears? This farce is a total disaster for the democrats, long may it drag on.

Guess you dident watch any of the testimony over the last 2 weeks lol and I hear he’s going to your country to ruin your healthcare gonna extort England for some trade deal as long as you guys allow big pharma to overcharge like they do here best to look homeward brother your country is in his crosshairs now!

[TopDeadSenter]

9 minutes ago, Tug said:

Guess you dident watch any of the testimony over the last 2 weeks lol and I hear he’s going to your country to ruin your healthcare gonna extort England for some trade deal as long as you guys allow big pharma to overcharge like they do here best to look homeward brother your country is in his crosshairs now!

I watched the whole thing. It was mostly boring except when Nunes, Stefanik and Jordan were unleashed and then it was hilarious watching Schiff's eyes bulging out of his head, poor chap. But the only time I heard even a sniff of direct evidence of any quid pro quo was in Sondlands opening statement, yet when he was questioned he admitted he only PRESUMED there was quid pro quo. And then the me-too sex crimes news on Sondland broke in the media, which made clear to me and most unbiased observers how he was pressured into changing his opening statement.

As a quick reminder, here is Sondland's now infamous quote. This quote was the equivalent of the iceberg that hampered the Titanic's record crossing time.

 

"No one told me that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming that it was,"

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I watched the whole thing. It was mostly boring except when Nunes, Stefanik and Jordan were unleashed and then it was hilarious watching Schiff's eyes bulging out of his head, poor chap. But the only time I heard even a sniff of direct evidence of any quid pro quo was in Sondlands opening statement, yet when he was questioned he admitted he only PRESUMED there was quid pro quo. And then the me-too sex crimes news on Sondland broke in the media, which made clear to me and most unbiased observers how he was pressured into changing his opening statement.

As a quick reminder, here is Sondland's now infamous quote. This quote was the equivalent of the iceberg that hampered the Titanic's record crossing time.

 

"No one told me that the aid was tied to anything. I was presuming that it was,"

Good thing for Trump that Nick Mulvaney, who was in charge of the Sondland, Volker, and Giuliani team's efforts, did not explicitly acknowledge and defend that quid pro quo.

[kwonitoy]

Nunes, Stefanik and Jordan were unleashed

 

You were watching different testimony then

Rep Gym Jordan asking Sondland "Who was at the secret meeting that didn't happen"?   too funny

Nunes babbling more incoherently than even Trump, that does take talent.

He'll be next to answer about his trip to East Europe Nov 30 to Dec 4 of last year 

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

No defense against the invisible and unheard evidence? or no defense against the presumptions, assumptions, and smears? This farce is a total disaster for the democrats, long may it drag on.

 Usually that's what people defend themselves off,all the other things  they take the 5th

[jany123]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

 

 

 

Possible, possible, held accountable, could, possible.

They don't seem very committed on an actual impeachment, LOL.

 

Says it all!

 

Nothing to fear.

And if the choice of words had been a little more.... committed... you would have rabbited on about dems having a predetermined outcome.... much as your choice of words reflect what most assume will be a republican abandonment of their oath of office.

[OneMoreFarang]

It seems all those spineless GOP politicians want to let Trump get away with anything.

But there is good news. This is what I read today:

 

Article II, section 2 of the constitution gives a president the power to pardon anyone who has been convicted of offenses against the United States, with one exception: “in Cases of Impeachment.”

If Trump is impeached by the House, he can never be pardoned for these crimes. He cannot pardon himself (it’s dubious that a president has this self-pardoning power in any event), and he cannot be pardoned by a future president.

Sourse: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/30/trump-impeachment-inquiry-removal

There is hope that he will go to jail at some time.

[Boon Mee]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

No defense against the invisible and unheard evidence? or no defense against the presumptions, assumptions, and smears? This farce is a total disaster for the democrats, long may it drag on.

Yes, the democrats have sealed their fate re congressional elections next year - never mind Trump will win in a landslide. 

It'll be a rout! ???? 

 

MAGA 

[RPCVguy]

11 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

MAGA 

Make Attorneys Get Attorneys ????‍♂️

[Longcut]

How much is all this shenanigans costing the American taxpayers? Are the Democrats going to reimburse the American people for all this BS? I hope the real cost of all this comes to light before the next election. 

[thaibeachlovers]

25 minutes ago, jany123 said:

And if the choice of words had been a little more.... committed... you would have rabbited on about dems having a predetermined outcome.... much as your choice of words reflect what most assume will be a republican abandonment of their oath of office.

 

I WANT them to impeach him, as I've said many times before.

Then the things they don't want to come out will.

 

a republican abandonment of their oath of office.

LOL. The only things politicians care about is being re elected, IMO.

BTW, so far high crimes and misdemeanours are rather missing from the scene. It's all just politics as usual, IMO.

However, had Trump left a girlfriend to drown in a river and not told anyone, that might get some traction.

 

 

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

 

 

 

Possible, possible, held accountable, could, possible.

They don't seem very committed on an actual impeachment, LOL.

 

Says it all!

 

Nothing to fear.

So why is he frightened ?

[legend49]

Yesterday he blamed the Democrats on scheduling his attendance date for when he is at the NATO meeting overseas. But he hates NATO and wants it terminated. Cant have the cake and eat it Donny.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Longcut said:

How much is all this shenanigans costing the American taxpayers?

Far less than the security for Trump and family et al including his golf trips and diversion of military to his golf resorts.

But based on the potential articles of impeachment, Trump is the cause for the impeachment proceedings. Therefore, should the House "indict" Trump for trial before the Senate, it is Trump who should personally reimburse the American taxpayers regardless of the outcome of the Senate trial.

[Cryingdick]

1 hour ago, soalbundy said:

So why is he frightened ?

He isn't frightened and the bright thing to do would be to stonewall the dems. The court is the senate he would be ill advised to say anything to the house. 0% chance of removal don't justify the witch hunt. 

 

 

[Cryingdick]

33 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Far less than the security for Trump and family et al including his golf trips and diversion of military to his golf resorts.

But based on the potential articles of impeachment, Trump is the cause for the impeachment proceedings. Therefore, should the House "indict" Trump for trial before the Senate, it is Trump who should personally reimburse the American taxpayers regardless of the outcome of the Senate trial.

 If he is found innocent in the senate what should happen? Another term. 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 If he is found innocent in the senate what should happen? Another term. 

Because being found not guilty by the Senate is the same establish that Trump's policies and actions are good for the citizens of the USA and should be endorsed by them? Non-sequitur much?

[J Town]

2 hours ago, Longcut said:

How much is all this shenanigans costing the American taxpayers? Are the Democrats going to reimburse the American people for all this BS? I hope the real cost of all this comes to light before the next election. 

Every time someone brings up this tired, ridiculous trope, I remind them that so far 36 people have been indicted/convicted, and many of them either are wearing orange jumpsuits or waiting to get fitted for one.

[J Town]

52 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

He isn't frightened and the bright thing to do would be to stonewall the dems.

Yes, for crying out loud, NEVER comply, NEVER provide witnesses, NEVER hand over subpoenaed documents . . .

 

Said no innocent man EVER.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

But based on the potential articles of impeachment, Trump is the cause for the impeachment proceedings. Therefore, should the House "indict" Trump for trial before the Senate, it is Trump who should personally reimburse the American taxpayers regardless of the outcome of the Senate trial.

LOL. The Dems want to impeach him as it's the only sure way, IMO, to avoid his re election next year. Nothing they've come up with in the past 2 1/3years has come close to removing him.

Actually, I doubt they will impeach as it would probably backfire on them, and they probably figure they can just keep attacking him for another year and perhaps enough voters will not vote for him.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, J Town said:

Every time someone brings up this tired, ridiculous trope, I remind them that so far 36 people have been indicted/convicted, and many of them either are wearing orange jumpsuits or waiting to get fitted for one.

Small fish. The big one still swims free.

Nothing to fear.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, J Town said:

Yes, for crying out loud, NEVER comply, NEVER provide witnesses, NEVER hand over subpoenaed documents . . .

 

Said no innocent man EVER.

But hes the most open transparent president in history, just ask him.

 

He says afghanistan is close to a cease fire. But the afghan govt know nothing about it and the taliban said that its news to them because they havent changed their conditions for talks since the talks were suspended.

 

Truthful Don at it again.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 If he is found innocent in the senate what should happen? Another term. 

Well being the most open and transparent president ever, what should happen is trump and other whitehouse officials should give evidence and provide documents.

 

Then voters can make an informed decision who to vote fot at the election.

 

But some prefer the vote with head buried in sand technique.

[Skallywag]

2 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 If he is found innocent in the senate what should happen? Another term. 

His next term will be spent in a Mental ward. 

His Delusional and Narcissistic disorder will eventually turn into Psychosis and the congress will have to invoke the 25th amendment ...5555

On November 18 he went unannounced to WR hospital for "phase 1" of his physical 3 months early?!  No president has ever done their annual physical in "phases" or 3 months early. 

He is stressed out from trying to remember his 2200 lies and keep up with his lying.  It is mentally exhausting and will eventually render him a blubbering idiot (not far to go) 

[candide]

From his past behaviour, I can guess what he will do: not send anyone to the hearings and then complain that the hearings are unfair for this reason.