Process To Be Followed At Each Public Hearing: Fill & Download for Free

What has shocked me the most about the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump?The disgraceful, treasonous, hypocritical and cult-like behaviour of the Republican Party and its supporters.The same party, and largely the same individuals, that impeached Clinton over lying about getting a blow job from an intern and said it was the worst thing ever done by a President, now find nothing wrong in the dozens of high crimes and misdemeanours this current President is clearly guilty of, has confessed to, has been confirmed by his lawyer and his chief of staff, yet somehow does not count as impeachable, because, like, “it does not matter if you are a republican”.The same party, and absolutely the same individuals, who complain every day about “procedure” in the process, when the process being followed is literally, and deliberately so, the same procedures the Republicans used when Clinton was impeached.The same party who investigated Benghazi 7 or more times, each time finding nothing to pin on Obama or the new Clinton, yet now moan and whine while their guy is being investigated.The same party who decry and ridicule “socialism” but half of them live on Social security, and/or take State and Federal support.The same party who literally describe themselves as the party for the rule of law, but when it is their guy in the dock, throw all that away and refuse to co-operate, send witnesses to hearings, outright mock Congress when they do turn up, and simply refuse to follow the rule of law they supposedly love so much.The same party who whines about not being allowed their own witnesses, but then refuse to allow the key witnesses to testify - Pence, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani, McGahn - and whines that they are not allowed to attend, or send lawyers, but when they are in fact invited, refuse to attend.The same party who for decades have been the Party that hates Russia, hates Communism, hates Dictators, but now (because their guy loves all of those things) can’t see anything wrong here, while at the same time abandoning allies and insulting and ridiculing friends.This, and hundreds of other similar examples from Senators, Representatives, Fox News cultists and cult supporters, is what I am most shocked by.

“What do you think of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed Green New Deal?”Where do I even start…First, I think the sheer chutzpah of a mere freshman Congresswoman not yet 30 years old thinking she has the clout to play in the “FDR League” and craft any sort of society-transforming “New Deal” is simply precious.Words mean more than just their dictionary definitions, and if you want to appropriate the words of one of the most influential Presidents in American history, you’d better have the chops to back it up.Second, like virtually everything I’ve heard Ocasio-Cortez say so far, it’s a pretty dream (I suppose), but entirely out of touch with reality.A Green New Deal | Alexandria Ocasio-CortezI’m not going to go through line-by-line, because a lot of it is legal-ish boilerplate but here are some highlights:2(A)(i)(d):provide opportunities for high income work, entrepreneurship and cooperative and public ownership;Sorry, but “opportunities for high income work” don’t happen in an environment of dramatically increased regulation. Jobs and wages get cut when you tell businesses that they have to do things the vastly more expensive way because Nanny State Knows Best. Oh, but I’ll bet she’s thinking of “green sector” jobs… and how many of those does she think there will actually be? Enough to offset the losses in every other blue-collar sector? Sweet dreams, Alex…Also, if “public ownership” were an efficient way to operate, we’d be seeing more of it already. But I guess she was obligated to work socialism in somewhere—it’s pretty much her “brand”.2(B):INVESTIGATIVE JURISDICTION — In furtherance of the mandate set forth in paragraph (2)(A), the select committee shall have the authority to investigate, study, make findings, convene experts and leaders from industry, academia, local communities, labor, finance, technology and any other industry or group that the select committee deems to be a relevant resource. The select committee may, at its discretion and as its members may deem appropriate, hold public hearings in connection with any aspect of its investigative functions.Woohoo! More authorization for political theater!Then we can look forward to “public hearings” in which eager progressives compete with each other to see who can ask the very most hostile and condescending questions of the various defendan… errm… executives who will be frog marched in front of the Green Inquisition.I can see it all now… “Are you now, or have you ever been an Eco-Villain?”6(A):Ahh, the enviro-meat of the proposal:The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed in order to achieve the following goals, in each case in no longer than 10 years from the start of execution of the Plan:100% of national power generation from renewable sources;building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid;upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety;decarbonizing the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries;decarbonizing, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure;funding massive investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases;making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely carbon neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.Others have already talked about the virtual impossibility of getting to 100% renewable energy in 10 years, so I won’t belabor the point.But the rest of this…#2 is actually not too bad an idea—the national grid is quite inefficient and vulnerable.#3… seriously??? How do you propose to do that? Even if it’s a system of “credits” or “grants”, it would be outlandishly expensive, but credits and grants won’t ensure 100% buy-in. Some people won’t want to make the extensive renovations that would be required, even if it’s fully paid for by someone else. So… what? We use eminent domain to effectively nationalize all those buildings? Stop playing Buzzword Bingo, Lexie, and join us on Planet Reality.And speaking of Buzzword Bingo… in #4, what is “decarbonizing” supposed to even mean? I get “carbon reduction” or whatever, but “decarbonizing” is A) not a word, and B) seems to indicate something further than that. How, exactly, does one “decarbonize” a herd of cattle, for instance? Sounds painful, and probably not SPCA-approved… But seriously, #4 and #5 are vague enviro-platitudes. They’re not even goals, much less action items—they’re just fuzzy “mission statements”, like how every school in existence says it “strives to achieve academic excellence”.However, when we get to #6, that’s where we finally get to be surprised! Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talking about “funding” something “massive” with no consideration of where such “massive funding” will come from?!? Say it ain’t so!!But, you know, I’m going to let #7 slide… I mean, if, somehow, we discover the magic wand that allows us to achieve #1–6, then I guess why not seek to export it to the world? Sure, I’ll go with that.6(B):And here’s the socialist gravy…The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall recognize that a national, industrial, economic mobilization of this scope and scale is a historic opportunity to virtually eliminate poverty in the United States and to make prosperity, wealth and economic security available to everyone participating in the transformation. In furtherance of the foregoing, the Plan (and the draft legislation) shall:provide all members of our society, across all regions and all communities, the opportunity, training and education to be a full and equal participant in the transition, including through a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one;take into account and be responsive to the historical and present-day experiences of low-income communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, rural and urban communities and the front-line communities most affected by climate change, pollution and other environmental harm;mitigate deeply entrenched racial, regional and gender-based inequalities in income and wealth (including, without limitation, ensuring that federal and other investment will be equitably distributed to historically impoverished, low income, deindustrialized or other marginalized communities);include additional measures such as basic income programs, universal health care programs and any others as the select committee may deem appropriate to promote economic security, labor market flexibility and entrepreneurism; and>deeply involve national and local labor unions to take a leadership role in the process of job training and worker deployment.So, just that first paragraph… you know what, never mind. We’re already deep in Fairy-Tale Land—if I keep pointing out every time she drops some utopian BS into the mix, we’ll be here all day. Down to the specifics, then.So, #1. Leaving aside the question of how we even determine a “living wage”, how in the world does she expect to create all these new jobs? Let’s face it, the data is in—job creation is not a thing top-down government is even remotely competent in. Oh, wait, I forgot! This is socialist Fairy-Tale Land! Obviously, the jobs will be directly offered by the government, whether they’re doing anything genuinely useful or not, and the well-above-market salaries will be paid for by the tax dollars of people working real jobs!#2 and #3 are meaningless pablum. At most, they mean, “We’re going to do this whole thing with race/gender/etc.-conscious policies and hope everyone forgets that Adarand Constructors v. Peña exists.”#4 is a stealth-expansion of the Committee’s mandate to include pretty much every socialist dream.And #5… really?? Because unions have such a great track record of efficiency and efficacy in the modern era, right? If I wanted to make damn sure that workers don’t develop job skills commensurate with their natural abilities, I’d outsource the task to unions. They didn’t invent Tall poppy syndrome or Crab mentality, but they sure did perfect it.And finally… 6(C):The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall recognize that innovative public and other financing structures are a crucial component in achieving and furthering the goals and guidelines relating to social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership set forth in paragraphs (2)(A)(i) and (6)(B). The Plan (and the draft legislation) shall, accordingly, ensure that the majority of financing of the Plan shall be accomplished by the federal government, using a combination of the Federal Reserve, a new public bank or system of regional and specialized public banks, public venture funds and such other vehicles or structures that the select committee deems appropriate, in order to ensure that interest and other investment returns generated from public investments made in connection with the Plan will be returned to the treasury, reduce taxpayer burden and allow for more investment.So, not only does the government dump tons of money into this… the majority of it will be, in essence government-owned.Got to give credit where credit is due, I guess—this last paragraph is a clever way of saying, “We’re aiming for real, actual socialism, not merely Western ‘socialism-lite’,” without actually saying so directly and alarming people.So, the answer to the question, in case I’ve been unclear…I’m not a fan.

I’ve made a list of the loudest and/or most frequent process complaints I heard from Republicans defending Trump and consolidated them into these ten…1. “There wasn't a vote, so the whole thing is a sham…”There’s no rule anywhere saying a special vote was needed. They were carrying out oversight, one of their core functions, under rules updated just four years ago, written by Republicans themselves. They also tried to use that argument in court and it went no where. They did end up voting anyway, but the vote that truly matters will be the actual vote on impeachment. So, while the complaint was groundless to begin with, it’s also outdated and been rendered entirely null & void. Next?2. “Sworn testimony taken before the vote shouldn't count…”The “no vote” complaint was frivolous to begin with, but this one building off it is no better. Are we children yelling “doesn’t count!”; “no takes!”; and “do over!”?We’re not talking about searches done without warrants (they compared it to that)…we’re talking about Congress doing what it always does, or at least is supposed to. Are sworn statements to Congress not valid on certain days? Do they want all the witnesses to come back and re-answer all the same questions? In fact, didn’t the Dems just call back a bunch of the witnesses to re-testify, this time publicly, only to have Republicans complain about that too?Yes, they did. It’s somehow simultaneously being dragged out, and rushed; being done in secret, and made into a public show; something that didn’t count before the vote, and a waste of time to do again. It’s almost like they’re just looking for something to complain about, but that can’t be…3. “Depositions were held secretly” / “behind closed doors” / “in the basement of a bunker”So…they shouldn’t count? It’s not clear what the implication is supposed to be other than something nefarious must’ve been happening and we should all be very suspicious.Obviously, they weren’t done in secret; we all knew about them concurrently and reporters were waiting outside the doors. However, they were done in closed session, which committees do all the time, especially when there’s good reason, such as interviewing multiple witnesses to events who might be inclined to sync up their stories or change their recollections.Again, they were done under the same rules Republicans themselves established and used for the Benghazi committee. They held dozens of hearings and all but one were done in private. The Republican chairman of that committee is on record singing the praises of that method: “The private ones [hearings] always produce better results.”When recently asked if he still feels the same and agrees with Democrats doing the hearings in private, he said: “100%.”Also, the depositions were transcribed and published, so nothing about them is a secret. We know what was said. Republicans were in the room and full participants. The location of the hearing room is irrelevant (and if that’s their big complaint they really have nothing) and just happens to be a great place for interviewing people from the intelligence community who might need to reference classified information.4. “Members couldn’t get access” / “Republicans didn't have access”Every member of the committee had access, plus every member of two more committees. That’s more than a quarter of the House and 100+ Representatives from both parties.At that early stage of the investigation, the committee deposition stage, there were Republicans with access and Democrats with access, and there were Republicans without and Democrats without. It was proportionally the same.The rules would’ve allowed for the closed committee meetings to be restricted to just the members of that committee, but they went above and beyond and extended it far past that number, quadrupling it.In just the past month, there have already been more open hearings than there were during the entirety of the Benghazi committee, which held years of hearings.5. “Republicans couldn't ask questions”A bald-faced lie. Look at any of the transcripts from those closed hearings and you’ll find Republicans were obviously permitted to ask questions. They followed essentially the same format as was followed in the televised hearings, where Republicans and their counsel asked plenty of questions. Equal time was offered per House rules.6. “Republicans couldn't get witnesses”There’s at least a modicum of truth to this one. First, they could get witnesses, and in fact did. Several of the witnesses who testified in public hearings were requested by Republicans. Their testimony didn’t go well for them, but that doesn’t suddenly make them someone else’s witnesses.The true part of their complaint is that some of their subpoena requests were denied. For example, the chairman steadfastly refused to allow them to out the whistleblower, particularly since the substance of the concerns they raised have been completely corroborated by the evidence, starting with the call notes Trump himself released. The equally vocal outrage at the supposed use of “hearsay” testimony and the whistleblower’s complaint being all based on “hearsay” is a contradiction they don’t seem to mind.The whistleblower also offered to answer written questions under oath but strangely they’ve not taken them up on that.The committee Majority also refused to allow the Minority to turn the hearings into a circus by dragging in people with no information to offer on the president’s actions, or those of his designees. That may happen at the trial in the Senate where the Republicans are in control, but it was not necessary for the investigation and indictment stage.7. They were all "Democrat witnesses"Nope, not a one. All the witnesses were either rigidly nonpartisan, or Republican. And they are all working for a Republican administration, some even handpicked by Trump or his top people.8. “Republicans weren’t allowed to yield time to each other like Democrats did”Of course they were, and did, repeatedly. What they weren’t allowed to do was take from the counsel’s time, in violation of the rules. They knew this but pretended they didn’t so they could manufacture a controversy and get footage of their stunt being gaveled down. I’ve explained this in detail, including excerpts and links with the exact rule they were breaking.9. Some witnesses didn't have direct contact with Trump.This is true. It is absolutely true. Does that make them irrelevant? Absolutely not.If I’m on record saying I want you to do this really shady thing, and I want you to work with my top people on it, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, wouldn’t it be reasonable to try to talk to Huey, Dewey, and Louie, and the people they dealt with?Wouldn’t it also be reasonable to seek all the contemporaneous documents, emails, text messages, and call records that might corroborate, contradict, or freshen the memories of those witnesses? And to seek out testimony from all the people partaking in those documents, even if they didn’t have direct contact with Trump, only Huey, Duey, and Louie?Well, Trump had lots of contact with Gordon Sondland on this matter, so he and people he interacted with were called as witnesses and testified, and provided evidence to help corroborate their testimony, despite Trump’s instructions not to do either.Trump also named Rudy Giuliani as his point person on this matter, but he’s refusing to comply with the subpoena, so instead some of the people he interacted with on the matter were asked to testify, and it so happens some of those people also interacted with Sondland on the matter, and provided evidence to help corroborate their testimony.Mike Pompeo, Trump’s Secretary of State, had direct contact with Trump on the matter, but he’s refusing to testify or provide documents, but people he dealt with on the matter testified, and provided some of the documents he refused to share.Same with Trump’s Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney. Same with Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton. Same with his Attorney General, William Barr. On and on it goes. Plenty of witnesses without direct contact with the Boss had useful information to share, and that’s on top of the considerable amount of first-hand evidence Republicans claim is missing.Also, doesn’t this process complaint contradict their other process complaint about not being able to subpoena either Hunter Biden, or the whistleblower, or some DNC person they rolled into one of the conspiracy theories?10. “It’s the wrong committee handling it”We could just file this under, “Who the hell cares?” but I guess we’ll have to shoot it down like all the others. The Whistleblower is part of the Intelligence Community. As such s/he made the complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General, who dutifully investigated and after determining it was not only credible but urgent, reported it to the Director of National Intelligence (both men were Trump appointees, by the way). The Director of National Intelligence eventually reported it to the relevant congressional committee, the Intelligence Committee, which is investigating. The investigation is the very same one they’re saying has nothing to do with intelligence and shouldn’t be involved.In fact, numerous committees are involved with the impeachment inquiry and will be reporting their findings to the Judiciary Committee (the one Republicans are complaining isn’t involved), who will review the evidence in the reports and draft articles of impeachment if they determine they’re warranted. What a process travesty!If you’re as exhausted from reading this bullshit as I am writing about it, you have a pretty good idea of how strong Trump’s defense is(n’t) if this is the best they can do. There are probably more I’ve forgotten and I’m sure there will be new ones trotted out soon enough, but for now we’ll just have to stop at 10.Update:Another meritless process complaint: “agency lawyers were excluded from depositions”For more answers like this, check out: Political Clarity, Demystifying U.S. Politics.