Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump Begins

[SlyFrog]

I must have missed something - why does he need permission to turn over evidence?

Unless something is under an NDA or something like that, he can turn over whatever he likes (or give it to the media). It’s not like you need permission.

[rrmorton]

It’s the age of HD so let’s all remember to use new razor blades on those days when we’re delivering press conferences on camera.

[antlers]

I must have missed something - why does he need permission to turn over evidence?

Unless something is under an NDA or something like that, he can turn over whatever he likes (or give it to the media). It’s not like you need permission.

He has co-defendants that also have rights to the information and are opposing making it public, arguing in part that it will infringe on attorney-client privilege (from reading the linked article).

[SlyFrog]

I must have missed something - why does he need permission to turn over evidence?

Unless something is under an NDA or something like that, he can turn over whatever he likes (or give it to the media). It’s not like you need permission.

He has co-defendants that also have rights to the information and are opposing making it public, arguing in part that it will infringe on attorney-client privilege (from reading the linked article).

That’s strange - if it really is “his” information, it is unusual for it to somehow then be subject to some type of group attorney-client privilege. I suppose if they somehow disclosed some collaborative thing together, but that seems unlikely. Just seems strange.

[MrGrumpy]

Manu Raju (mkraju)

[KevinC]

Witnesses sure are a drag on trials. Who needs 'em?

[Gordon_Cameron]

[Tim_N]

Senators are only interested in the preservation of their power. The ‘Bolton revelations’ only made them briefly nervous that not allowing witnesses will help their Democratic opponents in November or whenever they’re next up for reelection. I’m sure the GOP leadership is doing polling right now showing them that their base don’t care, after all the heavy lifting that Murdoch is doing on Fox News to make nothing matter anymore. There’s no real deliberation of the facts of the case or the legitimacy of further testimony being made here.

[Balasarius]

Schumer said the Ds only want four witnesses.

[gruntled]

Which is right?

Even the Fox web site refers to it as “votes to block witnesses” - a phrasing that needs to be repeated as often as possible.

[Rightbug]

I don’t actually know exactly what Burisma expected to get out of its partnership with Biden, so I can’t really speak to exactly what the plan was.

The first (and best) account I read of it said that it was basically virtue signalling on Burisma’s part. They wanted to demonstrate that this was a new, reformed Burisma with no ties to its corrupt past. Having the son of the respected anti-corruption Vice President on their board was a way of doing that.

So the intent was good and there was nothing illegal about Hunter taking the position but, yeah, he was basically being paid because of his father’s name so ethically it was a little iffy. But come on. That’s some pretty low grade nepotism.

[Banzai]

It’s not even nepotism, cause daddy didn’t hire him, unlike trump and his kids. Funny how I haven’t seen that mentioned in the press. Of course, I’m not paying a lot of attention to the usual press these days, so maybe they are all talking about how trump’s fortune is cause his dad left him the business, and how trump’s kids are all getting handouts from dad.

It is cashing in on his dad’s name, which isn’t exacty the hypothetical 'merican way, but in reality pretty much is.

[Timex]

The first (and best) account I read of it said that it was basically virtue signalling on Burisma’s part. They wanted to demonstrate that this was a new, reformed Burisma with no ties to its corrupt past. Having the son of the respected anti-corruption Vice President on their board was a way of doing that.

Eh? I don’t think it’s a good way of doing that at all. This seems like the one of thing a corrupt company would do.

That’s some pretty low grade nepotism.

I don’t think it’s actually nepotism at all. I don’t really think old man Biden was likely involved at all.

But it was clearly done to gain favor with him, and as such, i consider it kind of unethical on the part of Hunter.

But as a said, he’s not an elected official, so whatever. My opinion of him is largely immaterial. It’s entirely unrelated to any of Trump’s crap. But i still think it’s bad on the part of Hunter Biden.

On some level i think the Democrats should just say, “ok, let’s remove both Trump and Biden from office.”

[Mark_Asher]

If Biden doesn’t get the nomination I guess it goes away anyway. Trump wants to run against Bernie, though. It’s Capitalism against Socialism then. A Democrat that makes voters focus more on the economy probably favors Trump.

[Timex]

If only the Democrats had an option besides Biden and Bernie.

[Nesrie]

If only the Democrats had an option besides Biden and Bernie.

At least two good ones even!

[ShivaX]

Bernie Is the Opponent Trump Wants

[rrmorton]

Aren’t they gonna write that article about any candidate who’s ahead in the race?

[CraigM]

Yeah probably.

[Papageno]

McConnell is putting that out there to harness the GOP media army and all of its adherents into such a frenzy that any and all Senators who were thinking of voting for witnesses and documents will be cowed into falling in line.

BTW, Dershowitz’ claim that, if true, the quid pro quo in question STILL doesn’t rise to an impeachable offense, is ABSURD. Bribery is explicitly mentioned in the impeachment clause, and suborning bribery is understood to be included in the offense.