Hamlet without the Prince

Trump, lawyers won’t participate in upcoming impeachment hearing.

President Donald Trump and his lawyers will not participate in Wednesday’s impeachment hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, according to a letter from the White House to the committee obtained by ABC News.

“As for the hearing scheduled for December 4, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the President a fair process through additional hearings. More importantly, an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote in a Sunday evening letter to Chairman Jerry Nadler.

They’re gonna wait till it gets to the Senate; then he will appear. And if you want to read the entire letter, it can be found here.

This entry was posted in American politics. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Hamlet without the Prince

  1. stackja

    Meanwhile DT keeps winning.

  2. JohnJJJ

    This gets better by the day. What a time to be alive!

  3. Zatara

    The letter is brilliant.

    But only a bunch of lawyers could take 4 pages to say F.O.

  4. Roger

    President Donald Trump and his lawyers will not participate in Wednesday’s impeachment hearing in the House Judiciary Committee

    And thereby impart some authority to the process…why would they?

  5. mem

    Impeach Trump now! The circus.

  6. Bruce

    I wouldn’t want to play either Poker or Chess with Donald Trump.

    Some of these clowns are just wanna-be high-rollers who believe their own propaganda..

  7. Iampeter

    They’re gonna wait till it gets to the Senate; then he will appear. And if you want to read the entire letter, it can be found here.

    OK so he wants to be impeached and then will contest his removal from office but not the impeachment?
    Does he understand the process? Does anyone covering it?

    Also, here’s some fun reading around how utterly compromised this President is and how trivial this Ukraine stuff is compared to what is potentially out there.

  8. Mark A

    Iampeter
    #3250472, posted on December 3, 2019 at 6:22 am

    They’re gonna wait till it gets to the Senate; then he will appear. And if you want to read the entire letter, it can be found here.

    OK so he wants to be impeached and then will contest his removal from office but not the impeachment?

    Are you saying that if he turns up he has a chance of avoiding impeachment?

  9. Up The Workers!

    I’d like to see him have Pelosi, Shifty Schiff, Clinton, Occasionally-Coherent and the others all formally charged with Treason and put in the slammer pending trial.

    Surely two sides can play at this game.

  10. Mark A

    Up The Workers!
    #3250477, posted on December 3, 2019 at 7:05 am

    I’d like to see him have Pelosi, Shifty Schiff, Clinton, Occasionally-Coherent and the others all formally charged with Treason and put in the slammer pending trial.

    Surely two sides can play at this game.

    Could but wont, we are the nice guys you know.

  11. Wozzup

    Adam Schiff shares the kudos from impeaching Donald Trump with Fat Jerry Nadler .

  12. Wozzup

    Try Again……..

    [IMG]https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/stooges_lit_fuse.jpg[/IMG]

  13. Iampeter

    Are you saying that if he turns up he has a chance of avoiding impeachment?

    No, I’m saying no one seems to understand the process.
    The Senate doesn’t vote on impeachment, it votes on whether to remove an impeached President or not.
    The House votes on impeachment, so if he wanted to contest it the time for that has come and gone.
    Not that democrats will call for impeachment. Highly doubtful.

    He doesn’t need to defend himself with the Senate anyway because he already has the numbers to not be removed.

    So, team Trump is either playing dumb or has no clue.
    Certainly everyone covering this seems really lost.

  14. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3250524, posted on December 3, 2019 at 8:58 am

    No, I’m saying no one seems to understand the process.
    The Senate doesn’t vote on impeachment, it votes on whether to remove an impeached President or not.

    Re-read Steve’s post, the letter by the President’s counsel, and every comment ion this thread.
    Then identify one instance where anyone has suggested that the Senate votes on impeachment.

  15. Iampeter

    The letter, Steve’s post and posts in this thread, as well as others on this topic, indicate no understanding of the subject of impeachment.

    If I was wrong about that then I’m sure you would’ve just shown as much.

    So not sure who you think you’re kidding …

  16. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3250594, posted on December 3, 2019 at 10:14 am

    Let’s take it again:

    You said: No, I’m saying no one seems to understand the process.
    The Senate doesn’t vote on impeachment, it votes on whether to remove an impeached President or not.

    So, unless you can show that anyone here said that the Senate does vote on impeachment, you should apologise for your conceit and stupidity.

  17. FelixKruell

    Beginning to see a pattern here…Trump doesn’t like having to defend himself. Especially not in person. Lies have consequences under oath…

  18. Iampeter

    Tim, there’s nothing to take again and you haven’t added anything. Neither you nor anyone I’ve seen cover this topic at the cat, certainly not in this thread, so far seems to know how the process works. Like I said, if I was wrong you’d have just shown as much.

    So it’s you who needs to apologise for your conceit and stupidity.

    I won’t be holding my breath because on top of that you are also spectacularly vile and dishonest.

  19. Kneel

    “Beginning to see a pattern here…Trump doesn’t like having to defend himself. Especially not in person. Lies have consequences under oath…”

    Read the letter. It’s apparent that they believe it to be a setup – or perhaps more accurately, they are trying a stitchup. DT can’t have counsel, can’t cross-examine witnesses, can’t call his own witnesses… the list goes on.
    And they want him to agree to give up these rights and protections, and demand a response within 3 days all without advising him what will happen and who will be called as a witness.
    But hey, who needs discovery, right? If he’s got nothing to hide, why won’t he agree to give up his rights that no other president has had to give up for an impeachment hearing? Must be guilty, obviously.
    Still, I somehow doubt he’ll use the Clintonian “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” defend against an obvious lie – I suspect he won’t lie at all, as he doesn’t need to, but we’ll see.

  20. John of Mel

    Speaking of process…
    The way the official impeachment process is supposed to work – is the whole house votes to start it. Never happened in this case. Pelosi changed the rules after they got majority in the house (specifically to accommodate this sham inquiry), but this still doesn’t make whatever they had the last two months legitimate. That’s why their so-called subpoenas could be ignored without any consequences.

  21. Dr Fred Lenin

    Trumps appearance before a lying vicious kangaroo court would lend credence to this totally political mock trial ,nothing they have said would stand up in a proper court of law . They have nothing , absolutely nothing ,it’s contrived to discredit him , the no swamp elites who have had it all their own way for years .
    Trump just does not fit in , he is not a professional liar like them ,he doesn’t even have a law degree to train him how to lie properly . The people will exact revenge on these fools for treating them like cretins , roll on 2020 election .

  22. Tim Neilson

    Let’s take it again:

    You said: No, I’m saying no one seems to understand the process.
    The Senate doesn’t vote on impeachment, it votes on whether to remove an impeached President or not.

    For what purpose were you saying that the Senate doesn’t vote on impeachment?

    What makes you think no-one knew that?

    Oh, you think that “no-one seems to understand the process”.

    So presumably you should have no difficulty in showing why you formed the view that you needed to inform everyone that the Senate doesn’t vote on impeachment, by referring to something in Steve’s post, the Counsel’s letter, or comments on the thread that evidenced ignorance on that point.

    But you can’t because there’s no such evidence.

    Only your monumental conceit and stupidity made you assume that.

  23. Tim Neilson

    The letter, Steve’s post and posts in this thread, as well as others on this topic, indicate no understanding of the subject of impeachment.

    You really are a delusional megalomaniac aren’t you?

    Not only do you jump to a baseless conclusion that Steve and other commenters are unaware that the Senate doesn’t vote on impeachment, you can read a letter that describes in detail aspects of past impeachments and the current process and still malign the writer of that letter as having “no understanding”.

  24. Iampeter

    Read the letter. It’s apparent that they believe it to be a setup – or perhaps more accurately, they are trying a stitchup.

    They’re just playing political theatre. Impeachment can’t be a “stitch-up” because those Congressmen would all just be voted out of office. We saw this after Clinton where there was a slaughter among Republican Congressmen who voted to impeach for reasons the public found to be too trivial.
    The process is legit. All the checks and balances are in place. Everybody knows this. This letter is theater.

    The way the official impeachment process is supposed to work – is the whole house votes to start it. Never happened in this case.

    Yes, the House can just vote to impeach. But they are also allowed to create whatever process they want before calling for such a vote. They call it being “accountable” but the reality is that cowardly politicians want to put on a theater of “hearings” to get a feel for the public opinion on impeachment. None of them want to face the voters having just gone straight to a vote.
    In any case, the current process that Pelosi is following was set down by Republicans back when they had the majority in 2015. Things like being able to subpoena without hearings, hearings behind closed doors, everything republicans are complaining about, is in line with the republican’s own process. So it’s all theater and people who don’t know what they’re talking about covering it.

    But hey, who needs discovery, right? If he’s got nothing to hide, why won’t he agree to give up his rights that no other president has had to give up for an impeachment hearing? Must be guilty, obviously.

    There is no discovery, there is no due process, impeachment is not a court of law. It’s a purely political process as determined by the House.
    If the DOJ believes there are charges to be brought against the President then they can do so after he has being both impeached and removed from office, or after he is voted out of office. This would be entirely separate to any impeachment trial.

    That’s why their so-called subpoenas could be ignored without any consequences.

    They are not “so-called” and they cannot be ignored without any consequences. As with Nixon, refusing to comply with the Houses requests during an impeachment proceeding is grounds for a separate article of impeachment in and of itself.

  25. Iampeter

    Not only do you jump to a baseless conclusion that Steve and other commenters are unaware that the Senate doesn’t vote on impeachment

    It’s clear that people here don’t understand the process. YOU don’t understand the process.
    You’ve being triggered by having it pointed out to you.
    You’re not fooling anyone and are just beclowning yourself, caught in a subject you know nothing about and are doubling down as per usual.

  26. Lee

    Beginning to see a pattern here…Trump doesn’t like having to defend himself. Especially not in person.

    Why would he want to give his enemies credence?

  27. Tim Neilson

    It’s clear that people here don’t understand the process.

    Evidence?

    Particularly in relation to the President’s counsel. Quote from his letter, since you said that the letter indicated “no understanding” of the process.

    And, as specifically relevant to the issue I raised, evidence that anyone needed you to tell them that the Senate doesn’t vote on impeachment?

    YOU don’t understand the process.

    Evidence?

  28. Iampeter

    It’s clear that people here don’t understand the process.

    Evidence?

    You not knowing what you’re talking about is not an argument.
    You came in saying I’m wrong about something so YOU need to provide evidence.

    YOU don’t understand the process.

    Evidence?

    You’re triggered by what I’m saying and arguing with me instead of anyone else in this thread. Obviously.

  29. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3250833, posted on December 3, 2019 at 2:48 pm

    Poor old fact and logic free Iamashiteater.

    You came in saying I’m wrong about something so YOU need to provide evidence.

    Actually I didn’t.
    I’ve asked why you felt the need to announce that the Senate doesn’t vote on impeachment, when neither Steve nor anyone else on this thread, nor the President’s counsel, had ever said otherwise.
    I invited you to disprove the premise of my question by pointing to anything said by Steve or a commenter on this thread that suggested that they needed a lecture from you on that point.
    But you can’t because there is none.

    When you then asserted that the letter by the President’s counsel indicated “no understanding” of the impeachment process, I asked you to quote anything from that letter that supported your assertion.
    But you can’t, because your assertion is baseless.

    I asked for evidence of your assertion that I don’t understand the impeachment process, and you said:
    You’re triggered by what I’m saying and arguing with me instead of anyone else in this thread. Obviously.

    There is of course a basic logical error in that proposition. You need to prove that other commenters have said something wrong about the impeachment process before there’s the slightest ground for speculating that my not arguing with them indicates that I don’t understand the process.
    But you’ve consistently failed to do prove that.
    Because you can’t.
    Because nothing they said does indicate that they don’t understand the process.

    But, really, re-read what you’ve posted there and then look up “solipsism” and “megalomania” on the internet.

  30. Kneel

    “But, really, re-read what you’ve posted there and then look up “solipsism” and “megalomania” on the internet.”

    It’ll just stroke his ego to see a picture of himself…

  31. John of Mel

    They are not “so-called” and they cannot be ignored without any consequences.

    A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.
    The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.

  32. Snoopy

    and how trivial this Ukraine stuff is compared to what is potentially out there.

    Potentially, by this time next week I’ll be the world’s richest man and hold the world land speed record.

  33. JC

    Plodes

    That’s some really decent trolling.

  34. John A

    Zatara #3250166, posted on December 2, 2019 at 9:02 pm

    The letter is brilliant.

    But only a bunch of lawyers could take 4 pages to say F.O.

    Because it gave cogent reasons to support the conclusion and dared the recipient to refuse to FO – with consequences.

  35. Iampeter

    I’ve asked why you felt the need to announce that the Senate doesn’t vote on impeachment, when neither Steve nor anyone else on this thread, nor the President’s counsel, had ever said otherwise.

    Because Steve’s post and that of others here seems to suggest that the Senate votes on impeachment, by saying things like “wait till it gets to the Senate.” This is obvious and doesn’t require clarification.
    You also didn’t know that the Senate doesn’t vote on impeachment, so got triggered by me pointing out the basics. Stop pretending like you knew all along you embarrassing clown.

    When you then asserted that the letter by the President’s counsel indicated “no understanding” of the impeachment process, I asked you to quote anything from that letter that supported your assertion.

    I’ve provided numerous examples. Any suggestion about the process being unfair, no due process, etc, is all nonsense. I know the person writing that letter probably knows and is just engaging in theatrics. But neither Steve, nor you, nor posters in this thread seem to know this. Because you don’t understand the impeachment process.

    You need to prove that other commenters have said something wrong about the impeachment process before there’s the slightest ground for speculating that my not arguing with them indicates that I don’t understand the process.

    Everything in this thread is proof of this. You can also see examples of me pointing out specifics in my response to others.
    If I had gotten anything wrong, you would’ve just responded accordingly. But you haven’t. Proving you don’t know anything.

    I look forward to your next post making equally zero amount of arguments as you double and triple down on your beclownment.

  36. Tim Neilson

    Because Steve’s post and that of others here seems to suggest that the Senate votes on impeachment, by saying things like “wait till it gets to the Senate.”

    Now we’re getting somewhere.

    But why does “wait till it gets to the Senate” not mean “wait till it gets to the Senate for the vote on removal from office”?

    Answer – there’s no reason at all it can’t mean that.

    You’ve totally beclowned yourself by making an unjustified assumption about what Steve actually wrote.

    But do feel free to rescue the situation by pointing out those posts “of others here” that “seem to suggest” they believed that the Senate votes on impeachment.

  37. Tim Neilson

    BTW,

    In any case, the current process that Pelosi is following was set down by Republicans back when they had the majority in 2015.

    Are you suggesting that that was an impeachment proceeding, or are you just assuming that every process undertaken by the House must follow the same format?

  38. Iampeter

    Now we’re getting somewhere.

    But why does “wait till it gets to the Senate” not mean “wait till it gets to the Senate for the vote on removal from office”?

    You tell me.

    You’ve totally beclowned yourself by making an unjustified assumption about what Steve actually wrote.

    Feel free to explain what he actually meant then.

    But do feel free to rescue the situation by pointing out those posts “of others here” that “seem to suggest” they believed that the Senate votes on impeachment.

    And many other things they’ve gotten wrong too which I’ve pointed out.

    There’s a point at which you’re not “playing” dumb anymore.

  39. Tim Neilson

    You tell me.

    I did. I told you that there’s no reason why it can’t mean that. But you’re obviously too dishonest or too mentally defective to respond to what I wrote.

    Feel free to explain what he actually meant then.

    He meant what he said. That’s the point I’ve made all along but you’re either too dishonest or too mentally defective to respond to it.

    And many other things they’ve gotten wrong too which I’ve pointed out.

    But once again you’ve utterly failed to give any example of what I actually asked you to provide, to verify your previous assertion that posts “of others here” … “seem to suggest” they believed that the Senate votes on impeachment.
    Because you can’t. And you’re either too dishonest or too mentally defective to respond to the actual issue.

    Come on you gutless fraud. Give some examples of posts “of others here” that “seem to suggest” they believed that the Senate votes on impeachment.

  40. Iampeter

    I did. I told you that there’s no reason why it can’t mean that. But you’re obviously too dishonest or too mentally defective to respond to what I wrote.

    So you’re random assumption is correct. Meanwhile me coming to a logical conclusion based on Steve mindlessly repeating political theater letter as if it’s serious and generally not knowing what he’s talking about re this subject with numerous threads, has no reasoning behind it. Thanks for clarifying.

    He meant what he said. That’s the point I’ve made all along but you’re either too dishonest or too mentally defective to respond to it.

    Which is what? You have had NO point all thread. You’re just triggered that basics had to be explained to you, which is why you’re arguing with me and not with anyone else saying obviously wrong things. You don’t know anything about the topic.

    Come on you gutless fraud. Give some examples of posts “of others here” that “seem to suggest” they believed that the Senate votes on impeachment.

    This is Trumps defense too. There’s no tape of him explicitly requesting quid-pro-quo therefore he is innocent. We are all idiots after all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.