re: Did republicans hold closed door meetings impeaching Clinton?

No, you're right in that it would have to be large numbers that could potentially shift the scale away from a safe vote against. It's certainly not out of the question that it could be a factor in more closely balanced states. At the end of the day the Senators are voting to keep their seats.

But there's also the potential for lingering damage in terms of 2020 election, specifically in significant districts within swing states.

ETA....and letters are relatively insignificant, but I assume polling may be done in-state.

Cynicism is my main food group. It's the air I breathe. And my wife just loves that about me.

Now, at the end of the day, I haven't changed my mind about the weight and credibility of what I foresee being the Democrats' case. BUT I also feel like Nadler and his group are going to come up with something re: Russia/Mueller investigation to merge together with Ukraine. That would no doubt up the stakes to some degree, but I still foresee a precarious case even then, but one can never tell.

The impeachment/removal effort Im not worried about as much as collateral damage in terms of 2020, but nothing to do but wait and see I guess. And be pretty disgusted with the path taken.

ETA....and worry some about the new world that we're probably living in as far as this being the new norm well into the future.....less legislating for us, more concentration on the impeachment strategy for whichever President's in office at the time. It would/will be a stressful place perhaps indefinitely. Unfortunate precedent.

I know where you're at on it. I can't bash your opinion. If I put value on my opinion it only makes sense that yours has equal value to you. No problem. My lack of concern about Ukraine boils down to a basic idea.....the ONLY thing that could turn what Trump did, any and all of his actions, to the level necessary to remove is credible evidence that it was opposition research or "dirt for campaign purposes," specifically, that he sought as the thing of value in return. Short of an admission from him to that effect, I just cant envision the existence of anything else that will be sufficient proof.

In terms of the "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove" thing, my post above involves the "what you can prove part," obviously.

But Ive also given plenty of thought to the first part, what I "know" or believe to actually be the case irrespective of evidence and proof. I don't believe Trump had opposition research etc in mind. What has convinced me of that is the fact that Biden could just as easily be cleared of the cloud hanging over him with a Uk probe....negative benefit to Trump in that instance. 50/50 shot on that. Furthermore, the damaging info was already out there for use by Trump. No need for a confirmation of the claims by way of Uk opening a probe, nor do I even believe that a final conclusion would have been reached by Uk before the 2020 election gets here. We've seen how long these investigations necessarily take. If that were the case, again, no help for Trump.

We did, didn't we? Damn it.

Still, Trump already put out an effective (I believe) ad casting attention upon these claims that were already in the public realm. Trump simply continues to push that in similar ways in the lead up to the election, if Biden is even the nominee of course. The mere addition of "and they're even investigating it in Ukraine" isn't a significant enhancement to what he would already do, i.e. the current ad etc. More spitballing there.

At the end of the day, I don’t believe him, you do, but you are 100% right, I just don’t see a way you prove negative intent beyond him coming out and saying it, exactly as you stated.

Maybe that’s the reason for dragging their feet, just hoping if they wait long enough he will shoot himself in the foot.

quote:

---

how good is your memory?

---

Mine is good enough to know that no Democrats raised hell about any closed door meetings by Reps. Living in Ark. I was very aware of what was going on. It dominated local and state media every day.

Sounds like it's the same thing my dudes. People have to be crazy to think either party is better. Anyone who thinks that is part of the problem mang!!!

Well I think we have a side, we just realize that doesn’t also mean you have to be antagonistic (that’s the nicest word I can use) to someone who doesn’t share the opinion.

I’m going to bed, so can’t have a drawn out conversation on the investigation into the Russian investigation right now, but I think that one is going to turn out way more interesting. I don’t (currently) buy into the “cabal run, wide reaching Deep State” conspiracy, but something is certainly off, or our entire intelligence apparatus is incompetent.

And in this case, that seems unlikely.

quote:

---

I agree. But the distinction is, unless you can show me otherwise, all of those investigations were authorized by resolution upon full vote of the house.

There has been no such vote here.

And the constitution recognizes that certain actions by the House may warrant secrecy.

Simply because the alleged foundation of this impeachment episode was commenced by an IC employee who misused the WB statutes does not make it this intelligence matter warranting the secret proceedings.

---

There is no such thing as an Independent Counsel anymore. The Nixon Watergate scandal utilized "Special Counsel". After that scandal as well as the Saturday Night Massacre, a federal law called the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was passed.

That Act created the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), which also provided for the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC), also called a "Special Prosecutor" - directed by the US Attorney General and appointed by the Court of Appeals in D.C.

Kenneth Starr was an Independent Counsel, but the office - established under Title VI of the Act - was a temporary office, only active for 5-year periods unless re-authorized by Congress, and it expired in 1999, which was also the year the Bill was replaced with Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter VI, Part 600 - General Powers of Special Counsel.

So there are no more Independent Counsel. Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try (hold trial) impeachments.

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.

Just today, a Federal Judge in Washington DC ruled that a presidential House Impeachment "is an exercise of judicial power," ......"Contrary to (the Justice Department's) position -- and as historical practice, the Federalist Papers, the text of the Constitution, and Supreme Court precedent all make clear -- impeachment trials are judicial in nature and constitute judicial proceedings."

Therefore, the House's process for interviewing witnesses, gathering pertinent information and depositions, can be regarded much like a Grand Jury. This not only makes the House's choice to keep their interviews of parties of interest in the Impeachment probe proper and lawful, but ALSO means their demand for Grand Jury information held from the Mueller Investigation by the DOJ from the House is proper and lawful as well (pending a ruling from Appeals Court).

Furthermore, the federal Rule 6(e)(3)(D) and 6(e)(3)(D)(i) allows for the disclosure of grand jury information to proper federal officials assigned to presidential impeachment probes, when that grand jury information has direct relevant consequence to that probe(s). Don't forget, this impeachment inquiry also involves the Special Counsel Mueller investigation and findings, as well - which as Mueller stated in his final report, his only duty was to investigate and compile the evidence, and forward it to Congress to do the actual prosecution....