Thursday, October 31, 2019

U.S. House Democrats Back Impeachment Of President Trump In First Vote

Daily Mail: Democrats overwhelmingly back impeachment of Donald Trump in first House vote as they set rules for televised inquiry - as president fumes 'Witch Hunt' and Republicans accuse Speaker of 'Soviet-style' show trial

* House Democrats approved an impeachment inquiry into the president
* 'What is at stake is our democracy. What are we fighting for? Defending our democracy for the people,' Speaker Pelosi said
* The vote was 232 in favor with 196 voting no
* 'The Greatest Witch Hunt In American History!,' Trump tweeted afterward
* Trump spent morning tweeting and retweeting words from his supporters
* He called on Republicans to stand together and back him
* The resolution outlines how the impeachment investigation will proceed and what rights the president will have during it
* Republicans complained about the lack of 'due process' for Trump and charged Democrats with trying to overturn the 2016 election
* White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said the administration is considering bringing aboard additional staff to combat the impeachment inquiry
* The vote comes as Tim Morrison, who was Trump's top adviser for Russian and European affairs, testifies behind closed doors in the impeachment inquiry

A divided House of Representatives voted on Thursday to begin the next stage of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, taking the investigation from behind closed doors to Americans' television screens with a series of public hearings.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers took to the House floor to engage in a bitter debate over the impeachment process before voting largely along party lines on the resolution.

Democrats focused on their constitutional duty; they talked about following the law and protecting national security interests.

Republicans railed against the process, echoing a White House argument there is no due process for the president and no Republican in-put into the proceedings, and accused their colleagues across the aisle of trying to overturn the 2016 election.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Not surprised by this vote. It also changes nothing. The process (as is) will continue. The Democrats will run their probe as they feel like it.

On a side note. Many of the top Democrats involved in this impeachment process are from California. But as California fires wage uncontrollably causing untold damage they made the decision to remain in Washington and pursue this impeachment cause. I could be wrong. But if I was from California and I was facing these fires, I would be wondering what is my Congressional representative's priority.

More News On U.S. House Democrats Backing The Impeachment Of President Trump In Their First Vote

House votes to formalize impeachment process against Trump – live -- The Guardian
Trump impeachment inquiry: All the latest updates -- Al Jazeera
House impeachment resolution passes as Republicans shout 'objection': the latest -- USA Today
Democrats push impeachment rules package through House -- AP
Trump impeachment effort passes first test in split U.S. Congress -- Reuters
Trump impeachment: House votes to formalise inquiry -- BBC
US House paves way for Trump impeachment probe -- DW
US House votes to formalise Trump impeachment process -- France 24
US House formalizes Trump impeachment process in landmark vote -- AFP
Congress approves ‘impeachment’ resolution authorizing Schiff’s secret probe of Trump -- RT
A look at House resolution and next phase of impeachment -- AP


Carl said...

And you'all thought the Democratic 2016 election campaign was over.

Anonymous said...

Trump’s Syria pullout that isn’t

Anonymous said...

Ex Republican Rep, Who Voted to Impeach Clinton, Calls Out GOP for 'Whining' About Trump Impeachment 'Process'

Anonymous said...

Donald trump theme song when he wins again fred

Anonymous said...

Trump Is Committing 'Felony Bribery' by Giving Fundraising Cash to GOP Senators Ahead of Impeachment Trial: Ex-Bush Ethics Lawyer
Tim Morrison’s testimony will confirm Pompeo and Barr are all-in on Trump’s corrupt scheme -
White House Aide Confirms He Saw Signs of a Quid Pro Quo on Ukraine

Timothy Morrison, a National Security Council aide, said a top diplomat close to President Trump suggested a military aid package for Ukraine was conditioned on investigations into his political rivals.

Anonymous said...

Earlier this year, GOP senators pledged to quickly quash any articles of impeachment passed by the House. But as the Democrats compile more evidence that Trump withheld military assistance from Ukraine to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, they are adopting a more sober tone.
--Democrats ask judge to force McGahn to comply with subpoena
--State Dept. agrees to release documents on Giuliani communications
Fact check: Trump has only cut illegal immigration 'in half' from the high point of his own presidency -
--Fact check: Trump has only cut illegal immigration 'in half' from the high point of his own presidency -

Anonymous said...

As of 4:58 there were 6 comments and it appears 5 of them were Fred Lapides. He is so desperately trying to convince everyone.

Anonymous said...

Free Nude pics for collections

It is Democrat approved. Dems are going to get more Muslims within its ranks.

Anonymous said...

BDS Finishing the work that Hitler Started

Please support BDS and the Democrat Party

Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON — The State Department has agreed to release documents related to President Trump’s handling of aid to Ukraine, potentially providing ammunition to the impeachment probe now being conducted by Democrats in the House of Representatives.

The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by American Oversight, a watchdog group affiliated with progressive causes. That lawsuit was initially filed in the spring, after Trump dismissed U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie L. Yovanovitch. Since that firing, a whistleblower complaint and other developments have led to allegations Trump used $400 million in aid to Ukraine as leverage on authorities there to investigate Hunter Biden.

Hunter Biden’s father, former Vice President Joe Biden, is challenging Trump for the presidency.

Last week, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington, D.C., told the State Department it had to turn over Ukraine-related documents, citing “public interest” that he said tilted “heavily in favor of disclosure.”

Anonymous said...

Tim Morrison, the former White House national security adviser who engaged in multiple crucial conversations with Ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. about the quid pro quo that withheld military aid to try to leverage Ukraine into doing President Trump’s political bidding, has been testifying in the impeachment inquiry.

In preparation for my appearance today, I reviewed the statement Ambassador Taylor provided this inquiry on October 22, 2019. I can confirm that the substance of his statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is accurate.

My recollections differ on two of the details, however. I have a slightly different recollection of my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador [Gordon] Sondland. On page 10 of Ambassador Taylor’s statement, he recounts a conversation I relayed to him regarding Ambassador Sondland’s conversation with Ukrainian Presidential Advisor [Andriy] Yermak. Ambassador Taylor wrote: “Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President [Volodymyr] Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.”

My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland’s proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general — not President Zelensky — would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation.

I also would like to clarify that I did not meet with the Ukrainian National Security Advisor in his hotel room, as Ambassador Taylor indicated on page 11 of his statement. Instead, an NSC aide and I met with Mr. [Oleksandr] Danyliuk in the hotel’s business center.

Pro-Trump Twitter is trying to spin the minor discrepancies between the two accounts into something big, but that’s just absurd. In one case, the difference is over where Morrison met with a Ukrainian official. In the other, the difference is over who would announce the investigation into Burisma, the company on whose board Joe Biden’s son Hunter sat, as part of the quid pro quo.

But what is not in dispute is that the quid pro quo was articulated plainly and clearly. Let me isolate out the part of Morrison’s testimony where he says this explicitly:

Ambassador Taylor wrote: "Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation."

Anonymous said...

Campuses Already Notorious for Jew Hatred

University of California-Los Angeles

San Francisco State University

Columbia University

University of California-Irvine

University of South Florida

Campuses which SHOULD be Notorious for Jew Hatred

The University of Minnesota

DePaul University

Pitzer College

Wayne State University

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

Anonymous said...

ADD Uconn

Anonymous said...

Obama-Clinton Fundraiser Imaad Zuberi Cops a Plea

Clinton foundation contributor was conduit for Saudi sugardaddy Mohammed Al Rahbani.

Anonymous said...

A federal judge in Washington expressed disbelief that the White House could control what its former officials might talk about, when they're subpoenaed by the House of Representatives or otherwise.

"We don't live in a world where your status as a former executive branch official somehow shields you or prevents you from giving information," Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said Thursday in court to a Justice Department attorney who was defending the White House.

The lawsuit is over whether former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear for testimony in the House. Democrats issued the subpoena in April, though he ignored their demands and didn't show up.

"I see almost every day people who are former executive branch officials giving information to the media. People are out there talking, people are saying things," Jackson said, taking a legally complicated separation-of-powers topic and injecting the real world into it.

The Justice Department's attorney, James Burnham, countered that the House sued because it only needs McGahn to speak about his capacity as an official in his time working in the White House. President Donald Trump still would have the ability to claim executive privilege over McGahn's work for him, Burnham said.

"The President doesn't own it in respect to the people who are talking on MSNBC all the time?" Jackson asked.

Anonymous said...

CHUDS. I own an RV dealership.

Anonymous said...

Free Nude pics for collections of parrotheads.

It is Democrat approved. Dems are going to get more Muslims within its ranks.