He also believed in and defended the dodgy dossier, which was actual political dirt payed for by the DNC and sourced from Russian intelligence. — NOS4A2

You've seen and reviewed it?

Yes the power of impeachment extends to the full house, not any one individual house member or committee. Therefore any subpoena issued before the house vote for an impeachment inquiry is invalid. This is one of the many arguments in the White House impeachment memorandum, which deserves a read. — NOS4A2

It's interesting that the memorandum does not rebut any of the facts of the case, and instead consists of complaints about the process. This particular complaint rests on treating precedents as binding. That's bogus because the House has sole power of impeachment - they set their own rules.

As we now know from the IG report the Nunes memo was proven to be largely correct... — NOS4A2

A lie.

Did you even bother to glance at the wiki page on the Nunes memo?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo

"It makes five main points. First it alleges that the Steele dossier "formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application." The memo asserted that Christopher Steele was paid $160,000 by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.[27] In fact, Perkins Coie, which represented the DNC and Clinton campaign, had no contact with Steele, and never paid him directly. Instead, they paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, $168,000 of which was paid to Orbis by Fusion GPS and used by them to produce the dossier.[28] The DNC and Clinton campaign disclosed the total amount paid to Perkins Coie on campaign finance reports.[29]

The memo also alleged that information about the payment was not disclosed in the initial October 2016 FISA application or subsequent renewals.[27] However, the FBI's application for a FISA warrant did describe, in a footnote, the origins and political background of the dossier,[30] a fact conceded by Nunes and other Republican leaders on February 5, after the memo's release.[31]

Second, the memo alleges that the FISA application relied "extensively" on a Yahoo! News report from September 2016 by Michael Isikoff, which referenced Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow and used information from Steele.[32] It asserts that the article was "derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News." Isikoff has stated that the information he got from Steele was actually information that the FBI already had. He also described Steele as serious and credible.[32]

Third, the memo accuses Steele of being biased against the candidacy of Donald Trump, stating he was "desperate" and "passionate" that Trump would lose. It goes on to say Bruce Ohr knew about this bias and that it was not reflected in the FISA applications.[27][33] Ohr however did not work on counter intelligence matters and had no role in obtaining the FISA warrants on Page.[34]

The memo's fourth point quotes Bill Priestap saying that the corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" in October 2016 during the FISA application. The memo further alleges that Andrew McCabe testified that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) without the Steele dossier information."[35] Other members of the House Intelligence Committee and sources close to the matter have stated that the Nunes memo "misquoted" and "mischaracterized" McCabe's testimony, which was given in private and has not been made public.[36][37]

The memo also confirms that the spark for the FBI investigation into potential collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians was not the Steele dossier, but rather the comments made by Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, who told an Australian diplomat in May 2016 that the Russians possessed "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of hacked emails.[38] That confirmation contradicts earlier claims by some that the investigation had been triggered by the Steele dossier.[39][40] The memo notes that Papadopoulos is mentioned in the Page FISA application, and says "there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos." It also says the FBI's Russia investigation was opened nearly three months before the FISA surveillance application[27] in late July 2016 by Peter Strzok, who is accused of having "a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton."[27][35]

The memo also shows that the FISA warrant on Page was renewed three times. In each instance, the FBI had to show the signing judge that the warrant had merit.[41][42][43][44] News accounts in 2017 indicated that because of the nature of his ties to Russia, Page had been under FBI scrutiny and had already been the subject of a FISA warrant in 2014, at least two years before the Trump campaign.[45][46]

Finally, the memo asserts that former FBI Director James Comey testified to Congress that the Steele dossier was "salacious and unverified." However, Comey's prepared remarks show that he was referring specifically to "some personally sensitive aspects" of the dossier, not the entire dossier.[47]

On December 9, 2019, Michael E. Horowitz, the Inspector General, released his report stating that the FBI found 17 “basic and fundamental” errors and omissions in its applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court), but did not find political bias during the investigation of Trump and Russia, nor did he find evidence that the FBI attempted to place people inside the Trump campaign or report on the Trump campaign.[107][108][109][110][111] However, in a Senate hearing, Horowitz stated he could not rule out political bias as a possible motivation.[112] The report found that the FBI had a legal "authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication" to ask for court approval to begin surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser."

My bolds.

As we now know from the IG report the Nunes memo was proven to be largely correct and the Schiff memo riddled with falsities. — NOS4A2

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/13/vindication-nunes-memo/

"Horowitz’s report on the origins of the Russia investigation includes extensive new information about improprieties in Page’s surveillance, while finding the Russia probe as a whole was legitimate and well-founded."

Don’t know why you’re all bothering. The first law of Trump world is there are no facts.

Schiff makes closing statement - if the truth doesn’t matter then nothing matters.

Have you read the Horowitz report?

Wikipedia:

Second, the memo alleges that the FISA application relied "extensively" on a Yahoo! News report from September 2016 by Michael Isikoff, which referenced Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow and used information from Steele.[32] It asserts that the article was "derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News." Isikoff has stated that the information he got from Steele was actually information that the FBI already had. He also described Steele as serious and credible.[32]

Horowitz Report

On September 23, 2016, Yahoo News published an article entitled, "U.S.
Intel Officials Probe Ties Between Trump Advisor and Kremlin." The September 23 article described efforts by U.S. government intelligence agencies to determine whether Carter Page had opened communication channels with Kremlin officials. Steele told us that because his briefing with Yahoo News was "off-the-record," he did not believe that he was the source for the article. He stated that it was his understanding based on discussions with Simpson that the sourcing for the article came from within the U.S. government. However, portions of the article align with information contained in Steele's Report. For example. The article stated that U.S. officials had received intelligence reporting that Page had met with Igor Sechin, Chairman of Rosneft, and Igor Divyekin, Deputy Chief in the Russian Presidential Administration. The article cited "a well-placed Western intelligence source" for this information, and the article's author has confirmed that Steele contributed information for the article and that Steele was the "Western intelligence source."

Wikipedia

Third, the memo accuses Steele of being biased against the candidacy of Donald Trump, stating he was "desperate" and "passionate" that Trump would lose. It goes on to say Bruce Ohr knew about this bias and that it was not reflected in the FISA applications.[27][33] Ohr however did not work on counter intelligence matters and had no role in obtaining the FISA warrants on Page.

Horowitz Report

Steele's September 2017 interview with the FBI, which was conducted 2 months after the final Carter Page FISA renewal application was submitted to the court, also revealed bias against Trump. According to the FBI FD-302 of the interview, Steele and his business colleague described Trump as their "main opponent" and said that they were "fearful" about the negative impact of the Trump presidency on the relationship between the United States and United Kingdom. The Supervisory Intel Analyst stated that he viewed Steele's description of Trump as the "main opponent" as an expression of "clear bias." Steele told us that he did not begin his investigation with any bias against Trump, but based on the information he learned during the investigation became very concerned about the consequences of a Trump presidency.

...

In addition, as we also discuss in Chapter Eight, Renewal Application No. 1 and the subsequent renewal applications did not describe information that the FBI obtained from Department attorney Bruce Ohr regarding Steele's possible motivations and bias.

Wikipedia

The report found that the FBI had a legal "authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication" to ask for court approval to begin surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser."

Horowitz Report

We concluded that the failures described above and in this report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. These failures prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and deprived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. Although some of the factual misstatements and omissions we found in this review were arguably more significant than others, we believe that all of them taken together resulted in FISA applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.

Your bolds are fake news—lies—because that phrase applies to Crossfire Hurricane, not the surveillance of carter page. But you would have known that had you read the report instead of Wikipedia.

You're letting your emotions affect your reading comprehension again.

"Sufficient factual predication to ask for a court order."

"The decision to seek to use this highly intrusive
invest igative technique was known and approved at
multiple levels of the Department, including by then
DAG Yates for the initial FISA application and first
renewal, and by t hen Acting Attorney General Boente
and then DAG Rosenstein for the second and third
renewals, respectively. However, as we explain later,
the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to inform
Department officials of significant information that was
available to the team at the time that the FISA
applications were drafted and fi led. Much of that
informat ion was inconsistent with, or undercut, the
assertions contained in the FISA applications that were
used to support probable cause and, in some instances,
resulted in inaccurate information being included in the
applications. While we do not speculate whether
Department officials would have authorized the FBI to
seek to use FISA authority had they been made aware
of all releva nt information, it was clearly the
responsibility of Crossfire Hurricane team members to
advise them of such critical information so that they
could make a fu lly informed decision."

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

Horowitz Report

Steele's September 2017 interview with the FBI, which was conducted 2 months after the final Carter Page FISA renewal application was submitted to the court, also revealed bias against Trump. According to the FBI FD-302 of the interview, Steele and his business colleague described Trump as their "main opponent" and said that they were "fearful" about the negative impact of the Trump presidency on the relationship between the United States and United Kingdom. The Supervisory Intel Analyst stated that he viewed Steele's description of Trump as the "main opponent" as an expression of "clear bias." Steele told us that he did not begin his investigation with any bias against Trump, but based on the information he learned during the investigation became very concerned about the consequences of a Trump presidency.

...

In addition, as we also discuss in Chapter Eight, Renewal Application No. 1 and the subsequent renewal applications did not describe information that the FBI obtained from Department attorney Bruce Ohr regarding Steele's possible motivations and bias. — NOS4A2

Nothing about Ohr.

Horowitz Report

On September 23, 2016, Yahoo News published an article entitled, "U.S.
Intel Officials Probe Ties Between Trump Advisor and Kremlin." The September 23 article described efforts by U.S. government intelligence agencies to determine whether Carter Page had opened communication channels with Kremlin officials. Steele told us that because his briefing with Yahoo News was "off-the-record," he did not believe that he was the source for the article. He stated that it was his understanding based on discussions with Simpson that the sourcing for the article came from within the U.S. government. However, portions of the article align with information contained in Steele's Report. For example. The article stated that U.S. officials had received intelligence reporting that Page had met with Igor Sechin, Chairman of Rosneft, and Igor Divyekin, Deputy Chief in the Russian Presidential Administration. The article cited "a well-placed Western intelligence source" for this information, and the article's author has confirmed that Steele contributed information for the article and that Steele was the "Western intelligence source." — NOS4A2

Nothing about Isikoff.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/no-political-bias-but-fbi-made-mistakes-in-probe-of-trump-2016-campaign-watchdog-idUSKBN1YD11L

(The source of the bolded quote.)

"Horowitz found that the FBI had a legal “authorized purpose” to ask for court approval to begin surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser.

But he also found a total of 17 “basic and fundamental” errors and omissions in its applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) that made the case appear stronger than it was."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation)#2019_Justice_Department_Inspector_General_report

During Senate testimony after the report's release, Horowitz attributed the warrant problems to "gross incompetence and negligence" rather than intentional malfeasance or political bias,[3] and stated: "The activities we found don’t vindicate anyone who touched this. The actions of FBI agents were not up to the standards of the FBI."[104] As a result of the findings, Horowitz announced a broader review of the FBI's FISA warrant application process, to study whether problems with the process are systemic.[101]

The report debunked claims, promoted by Trump and his allies, that the Steele dossier had prompted the opening of the Russia investigation, and reiterated that the FBI investigation had in fact started in late July 2016, based on a tip from Australian officials regarding Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.[2] The report also refuted Trump's assertions that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had initiated the investigation; that decision was made by William Priestap, the assistant FBI director for the Counterintelligence Division.[105] The report criticized the FBI, however, for relying on information from the Steele dossier even though one of Steele's sources told the agency that his statements had been mischaracterized or exaggerated.[4][2] The OIG investigation found no support for Trump's claims that President Obama had ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower.[2] The OIG also found no support for Trump's claims that the FBI had implanted a "spy" within his 2016 campaign,[2] finding "no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI's decision" to use informants (known within the FBI as "confidential human sources" or "undercover employees") "to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."[105]

I’ll still be here defending you from the snakes, even if you lay with them. — NOS4A2

You appear to spend the vast majority of your time here in the thankless job of defending Trump.

On the other hand, he's probably the only one of us making any money. :cry:

Preemptive fact-check:


TRUMP lawyer PAT CIPOLLONE: “Why would you lock everybody out of it from the president’s side? … It’s evidence they themselves don’t believe in the facts of their case.”

THE FACTS: Trump wasn’t locked out. He rejected an invitation from the House Judiciary Committee to participate in the hearings that ultimately produced the articles of impeachment.

CIPOLLONE: Democrats “hid evidence” from the Senate impeachment trial in their opening arguments.

THE FACTS: This is an iffy definition of hiding something. Cipollone spoke about the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukraine’s president, which is at the heart of the impeachment case, and cited certain passages that Democrats did not play up or mention in their prosecution argument.

The rough transcript of that conversation is a matter of public record, having been released by the White House, and is far from hidden.

https://waow.com/2020/01/25/ap-fact-check-trumps-impeachment-defense-and-the-facts/

More to follow.

TRUMP’s legal brief: “Anyone having the most basic respect for the sovereign will of the American people would shudder at the enormity of casting a vote to impeach a duly elected President. ... House Democrats were determined from the outset to find some way — any way — to corrupt the extraordinary power of impeachment for use as a political tool to overturn the result of the 2016 election and to interfere in the 2020 election.”

THE FACTS: This is an odd reading of constitutional history. Removing a duly elected president is exactly the goal of the Constitution’s impeachment clause, not a perversion of it.

https://apnews.com/edc86daef497ec66e87f86ffe5d5b1e4

TRUMP, on Democrats who want witnesses to testify: “They didn’t want John Bolton and others in the House. They were in too much of a rush. Now they want them all in the Senate. Not supposed to be that way!” — tweet Monday.

THE FACTS: That’s false. Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, refused to testify. Democrats wanted him to. But they chose not to pursue a subpoena and risk an extended struggle in court. Bolton has signaled his willingness to testify at the Senate trial if he’s subpoenaed.

TRUMP’s legal brief: “The practical application of the Impeachment Clause by Congress supports the conclusion that an impeachable offense requires especially egregious conduct that threatens the constitutional order and, specifically, that it requires a violation of established law.”

THE FACTS: Egregious conduct, yes. But impeachment does not require a crime to have been commited.

The Constitution’s framers had a vigorous and well-documented debate over just that point.

TRUMP: “Individuals who have stated for the record that they spoke to the President about the subject actually exonerate him. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland stated that when he asked the President what he wanted from Ukraine, the President said: ‘I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.’” — Trump’s initial legal response, released Saturday by his lawyers.

THE FACTS: He omits key context on what Sondland told House investigators.

As one of the officials most deeply involved in trying to get Ukraine to do Trump’s bidding, Sondland testified that there was indeed a quid pro quo in the matter and “everyone was in the loop.” Specifically, Sondland said it was understood that Ukraine’s new president would only get a meeting with Trump in the Oval Office if he publicly pledged to investigate the Bidens and the Democrats.

“Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ Sondland asked in his statement to the House Intelligence Committee. ”As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.”

Moreover, on the more serious matter of withholding military aid to Ukraine unless the country investigated Democrats, Sondland testified that a this-for-that explanation was the only one that made sense to him.

Testimony from other officials shored up the picture of a president and his associates systematically trying to get Ukraine to do what Trump wanted during a period when the military assistance approved by Congress was put on hold without explanation.

___

TRUMP: “House Democrats ran a fundamentally flawed and illegitimate process that denied the President every basic right, including the right to have counsel present, the right to cross-examine witnesses.” — response to impeachment charges Saturday.

TRUMP: “‘We demand fairness’ shouts Pelosi and the Do Nothing Democrats, yet the Dems in the House wouldn’t let us have 1 witness, no lawyers or even ask questions.” — tweet on Jan. 13, referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

THE FACTS: Not true. The House Judiciary Committee, which produced the articles of impeachment, invited Trump or his legal team to come. He declined.

Absent White House representation, the hearings proceeded as things in Congress routinely do: Time is split between Democratic and Republican lawmakers to ask questions and engage in the debate. Lawyers for Democrats and Republicans on the committee presented the case for and against the impeachment articles and members questioned witnesses, among them an academic called forward by Republicans.

The first round of hearings was by the House Intelligence Committee and resembled the investigative phase of criminal cases, conducted without the participation of the subject of the investigation. Trump cried foul then at the lack of representation, then rejected representation when the next committee offered it.

The broader context:

Trump Has Made 15,413 False or Misleading Statements Over 1,055 Days

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/16/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/

ну да.

He seems a bit amateurish for a Russian asset. More like a leisured incel sitting on a trust fund.

Continued Fact-Check:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/trump-impeachment-trial-live-coverage-president-s-defense-begins-n1122651/ncrd1122861#liveBlogHeader

Fact check: Trump lawyer says Ukraine didn't know about hold on aid

Two claims from Purpura on what and when Ukraine knew about the hold on Congress-approved security assistance — and the Trump administration's apparent reluctance set a date for a White House meeting — are inaccurate, according to publicly available evidence.

"The transcript shows that the president did not condition either security assistance or a meeting on anything. The paused security assistance funds aren't even mentioned on the call," Purpura said.

Though it was not explicit, Trump did appear to tie the award of aid to Ukraine to Zelenskiy's willingness to cooperating with Trump on investigations he desired into the Bidens and the 2016 election, according to the White House's five-page description of the call, which notes that it is not an exact transcript as Trump and his attorneys have claimed.

Additionally, text messages from former special U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker reveal that top aides to Ukraine's president were aware of those conditions before the call took place.

“heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington,” Volker texted an aide to the Ukrainian president hours before Trump and the Ukrainian president spoke via phone.

"President Zelenskiy and high-ranking Ukrainian officials did not even know — did not even know — the security assistance was paused until the end of August, over a month after the July 25 call," Purpura continued.

While some witnesses said they were not sure when Ukraine first knew of a hold on their military aid, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper testified that the Ukrainians knew of an issue with the assistance on July 25 and were asking questions about it to U.S. counterparts. A former foreign minister in Ukraine also told The New York Times that Ukraine knew of the aid freeze in July.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/world/europe/ukraine-impeachment-military-aid.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/nov-20-impeachment-hearings-live-updates-n1086301/ncrd1087646#liveBlogHeader

Well done.

Fact Check:

Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin took aim at House impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries for claiming Trump had a "blanket defiance" to the House's impeachment inquiry that had no legal justification.

Philbin disputed the claim and pointed to an October 18 letter in which the White House said it would not comply with subpoenas issued by House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff — who is also the lead impeachment manager — for documents.

The reason the White House cited for not complying with the subpoenas was that the House had not yet formally launched the impeachment inquiry and therefore was "not authorized to conduct any such inquiry or to subpoena information in furtherance of it."

Fact check: The separation of powers doctrine indicates that even when it's not conducting an impeachment inquiry, Congress has the constitutional power to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Trump has stonewalled Congress at every turn, however, by falsely arguing that he is "absolutely immune" from not just prosecution, but any investigation whatsoever while he's in office.

He also issued a sweeping order directing all executive branch officials and six government agencies not to comply with any requests for documents or witness testimony even after the House formally opened its impeachment inquiry.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyers-opening-arguments-impeachment-trial-schedule-live-updates-2020-1#deputy-white-house-counsel-patrick-philbin-falsely-claims-trump-had-a-legal-basis-for-refusing-to-comply-with-congressional-subpoenas-2

:smile: Learning a lot.

Re White House's argument for defying subpoenas:

Although the White House did not flatly assert executive privilege as the reason, it came extremely close, Kitrosser said.

“They are probably trying to have it both ways and trying to avoid the legal and political ramifications of claiming executive privilege while getting the advantage of it,” she said.

Politically, an executive privilege claim could cross a line leading to more support for impeachment. Legally it’s more or less the last attempt a president could make to prevent disclosure of evidence or testimony.

“Democrats are just trying to force anyone, with any remote connection to this issue, to testify without administration lawyers present, and that puts national security at risk and also creates risks for potential witnesses who may unknowingly divulge privileged or classified information,” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said.


Democrats say there’s no basis for ignoring their subpoenas. In a letter Sunday to Blair’s attorney, the three committee chairs leading the impeachment probe said the claims have “no merit.”

“Instead, it is the latest in a long line of baseless procedural challenges to the House of Representatives’ authority to fulfill one of its most solemn responsibilities under the Constitution,” they wrote.

Even if Trump were to overtly claim executive privilege, some experts say there’s no constitutional provision that it would apply to impeachment.

“No communication involving the White House is subject to absolute immunity,” said David Driesen, a Syracuse University law professor who has studied the issue. “No person is immunized from appearing by any claim of privilege known to the law.”

This latest resistance to House subpoenas and testimony fits into the broader White House claim that the entire process is fundamentally unfair. Trump’s lawyers have also made immunity claims in seeking to keep his tax records secret, but a New York court ruled Monday they can be released in a case likely to be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://apnews.com/48c57b063e3a4da699cd9a8ee8dbfe91

On the other hand, he's probably the only one of us making any money. :cry:

I’m retired. Money is already earned, friend. Unfortunately that’s something they won’t teach you in certain circles. :wink:

Re Trump's right to due process:

In a recent letter to Democratic leaders, presidential counsel Pat Cipollone said Trump should have the kinds of due process rights typically found in court trials: the right to question witnesses, the right to see evidence, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and so forth. That position has been echoed by numerous Republican lawmakers.

“The president cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the executive branch from their work on behalf of the American people,” Cipollone wrote. “The president has a country to lead.”

However, legal experts note that the Constitution and even prior impeachment proceedings do not lay out a roadmap for those kinds of rights in the initial House inquiry. Instead, that would come in a trial before the Senate, if it gets that far.

“The Constitution says virtually nothing about the procedures the House and Senate are to employ in carrying out their respective impeachment roles,” wrote Georgia State University law professor Neil Kinkopf in recent article.“Indeed, the Constitution is completely silent regarding the procedures in the House.”

Driesen said all of the efforts by the White House to slow down or halt the impeachment inquiry are just that — none have a basis in the law.

“Trump defies the Constitution and tries to distract from that fact by making baseless attacks. This is a good example,” Driesen said.

https://apnews.com/48c57b063e3a4da699cd9a8ee8dbfe91