Claim Re Process Inquiry Request: Fill & Download for Free

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 So, while the complaint was groundless to begin with, it’s also outdated and been rendered entirely null & void.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.

(I was able to find an answer to this question from Mr. Anirban Karmakar, who claims to be the owner of that doubtful website.)This is really saddening how a question about real or fake factor on Quora is once again answered by the owner only!Like a thief will never admit that he has stolen, an owner would never say his website is scam.Simply put, Mr. Karmakar has given a cheesy textual touch on his CyberExpo website and the same has been done in his answer as well. However, it does not really answer ‘anything’ regarding the question.He could have shown proofs, he could have shared more about the genuinty, he could have put all the light on how it is not scam. As an owner he can tell something about the thing. But nope. All that his answer says is to pay Re.1 and try. Pay, Pay, Pay, Pay, Pay!It is a Win-Win for Mr. Owner, because that’s the whole goal - to suck Re.1 anyhow from your pockets.—As clear as it seems, CyberExpo’s business model is pretty clever -Considering the number of jobless population of India, every now and then millions of people search for online jobs and if they can really get any work-from-home opportunities without investments. Here, CyberExpo appears in the Google Search and throws it’s hook to catch fishes or applicants.Charging Re.1 from such a large number of people is automatically going to make you rich.Each day, at least a few hundred to thousands of people would be giving it a shot and agreeing to pay Re.1, because they want work. And this Donation-loop continues!But, WAIT!The question was not about how this business is getting richer by misusing innocent unemployed Indian youth. The actual question is about the ingenuity of that website and how it lures everybody to just somehow pay that Re.1 fee, which is just like throwing a coin in lake and forgetting. We clearly know that an economically frustrated, jobless individual won’t go and file a case or waste time in any inquiry of One Rupee after one month (which is the waiting time CyberExpo has mentioned its website).Nice and dirty business model, I would say.To all those who still find this SCAM site as genuine, please try to understand this:If CyberExpo is really that genuine, then why is it charging fee from each and everyone of thousands or million applicants? They are just blindly claiming that the require 300 new registrations every single day, but being such a hugesome employer (as they claim themselves) if that number (300 registrations/per day) is true than why do they have such stupidly designed website?Furthermore, if their so-called claim of 300 registrations per day is true, then why are they taking money from rest of you applicants? You have paid them something, right? Why are they not picking the 301TH and 302TH candidate from the ones who have already paid and waiting to be selected?After being flooded by thousands or millions of job requests, this FAKE and FRAUD website never really closes the registration process, despite already having thousands of people already waiting in queue. They keep asking you to pay and wait to join, because Re.1 collection will keep getting bigger and bigger every next second! :)Even the English of that site has tens of grammatical mistakes. From which angle does it look seriously genuine to you?Please understand, my dear innocent Indian brothers and sisters. :) I beg to say it, please don’t get fooled like this.“I HEREBY APPEAL EACH OF YOU WHO IS READING MY ANSWER, TO NOT FALL PREY TO ANY ABUSERS OR SCAMMERS ONLINE. I can understand how much all of you need a work-from-home / online job opportunity, but I would say that more than 90 percent of these so-called employers are SCAM. They know that you are not in position of paying a high fee to get the job, so they will also come to anyhow take out 1 rupee, 5 rupees, a few hundred or 2000 thousand somehow…Also, if you must search for genuine jobs online, please stay conscious and search the same on sites such as freelancer or gig sites like Fiverr. You can also check your local newspaper’s classified column for data entry and typing jobs - such jobs which are provided offline often require you to sit and work from their offices, but at least those are genuine.Last but not the least, if you are really educated enough with goodsome hold in English or Hindi, please go ahead and create a blog of your own on Blogger or Wordpress. If you write well and regularly on your own blog, there are all possible chances that it can start making you money within first year itself. Yes, with hard work and consistency, it is very much possible! :) (I would say, if you have got the skills to write, let’s collaborate and give something meaningful to the Internet world to read! I will be happy to be your partner in crime.)I understand that your needs are big, but please have some self worth and don’t let scammers misuse your tough situations to suck pennies out of you.”I never really ask people to Upvote, but this particular answer has my say and it needs to be spread everywhere, so that innocent people may not be fooled further.So, if you liked this answer, I request you guys to please hit the ‘Upvote’ button below my answer. _/\_ (*Peace*) :)Edit: Wait, wait, guys! This Is IMPORTANT.I need to tell you this, Mr. Anirban Karmakar, who is the owner of CyberExpo Website had commented on this answer, once again asking me to try to pay and know. In his comment, he also asked me to have a ‘private’ chat with him where he will give his answers. To which, I had asked him that the questions and doubts about your website is not only mine but of many, so would not it be fair if he doesn’t escape from providing a public answer?Also, he was telling me in his comment that his website charges no money from anyone and that it is only showing up in Google results and he doesn’t understand why it is showing up wrong on Google. (And this was his white lie! Because his website was showing the Re.1 charges even until the beginning of February month. And I have seen the same during last year as well.)So, I explained Mr. Karmakar that he has only changed his website’s content after reading this answer of mine and this is why Google will take some time before showing the updated content of your website. I also raised the question to him that if your site does not charge any money, why was it showing all the charges since all these years and until today (when you have smartly changed it just now), how do you justify misguiding all your visitors?In the same manner, I had asked him to let his visitors and interested applicants know about him and his CyberExpo. I also suggested him to bring a dedicated FAQ page where CyberExpo website can reveal its main staff’s picture as well as Geographical locations of where their offices are situated, so that people like me and many can investigate and verify by ourselves.But, as you can see now… Mr. Karmakar has deleted his comment from my answer. This clearly made me believe that neither CyberExpo nor its owner are legit or worth trusting. Why else would Mr. Owner delete his own comment? LOL.(Readers can still check the comment section of this answer. Here is how: There in, you can find a comment in collapsed comments by someone named as Jude Narcis. Please check the replies to that comment. The deleted response to Jude’s comment was Mr. Karmakar’s reply to me. This was his clever tactic to make a response without being seen by many. He has deleted his comment when I confronted him the right way, but readers can still see what all I had asked from him as a response to his comment. Undoubtedly, he deleted his comment and vanished like a fraudster. That’s a proof enough, guys. Don’t fall prey. :) )I request the readers and all the curious minds to decide it yourself now. :)April is coming. Save yourself from being fooled by fraudulent employers. Stay safe from online job scams, mates.And keep smiling! :))

I applaud him. I wish he had said more.I would have loved for him to call out each and every Congressman that yelled for investigation after investigation of Hillary Clinton… not because they cared about her emails… but because they cared that she might win.That little interview is also why Paul Ryan ended up as Speaker.Trey Gowdy admitted that Clinton was not responsible on Benghazi. However, he sure had no problem in continuing to hound her… in order to hurt her credibility.But, none of this is new… after all… Newt and buddies sabotaged Obama… and decided on the night of his inauguration they would make sure he was not going to be re-elected.Yeah… tell me some more please how put upon Republican leadership is.Am I tired of hearing about how partisan we are? GOOD HEAVENS YES!!!!!!Now… partisan crap aside… there was absolutely nothing incorrect about what Schiff said. I would hope and expect that was Trump a Democrat, or were it any other person in the White House… including Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Carter, etc… that any Congressman would stand up and demand the same.There is no way anyone can deny that for 2 years there was absolutely no oversight.Why is that? When did Congress decide their role was to do only what the POTUS demands or what protects him?Through legislative debate and compromise, the U.S. Congress makes laws that influence our daily lives. It holds hearings to inform the legislative process, conducts investigations to oversee the executive branch, and serves as the voice of the people and the states in the federal government.About CongressThese words are the first words you read… did you happen to see that first bit… through compromise? How about conducts investigations to oversee the executive branch?Had the proper oversight been done in 2017–2018 then there would not now be a flood of investigations launched and subpoenas served.I expect… and I would hope others would and would DEMAND that Congress investigates the executive branch, especially if there is any sort of suggestion by ANYONE that there could be people compromised by a foreign government.Obama faced numerous inquiries by Congress… regardless of what claims are now. He simply didn’t behave in a manner that made anyone question whether he had been compromised by a hostile government.Trump Wrong About Obama Documents - FactCheck.orgEvery leader faces inquiries from Congress… and yes… they should.Is Trump being deluged by requests for information and documentation? Sure… but then… it is his own actions and his behavior that brought that about.No one, regardless of how devoted a supporter, can claim that other leaders have made comments about hostile government leaders and deferred to them in the manner that Trump has.If you only want to see partisanship, then that is all you will see.I’m just putting this out there…If it were Obama or Clinton in the same situation… if they were surrounded by dozens of people that were closely involved with Russian officials during any election… if investigations resulted in over 100 indictments… many of foreign individuals would you feel the same as you do over the Trump investigations?