Re “Luria has heard enough to vote for impeachment” (The Virginian-Pilot page 2, Daily Press page 4, Nov. 9): So, U.S. Rep. Elaine Luria has made up her mind and will vote to impeach President Donald Trump. After all, she’s heard one side of the story, and hearing the other side would only confuse her.
Thank God she’s not a judge. She’d render decisions after the prosecution rested. No need to hear the defense, is there?
Hugh T. Sharp, Williamsburg
Mr. Sharp, and several others, continue to prove they do not understand the impeachment process. The House conducts the investigation, similar to a Grand Jury, and then votes based on the evidence presented during the investigation. If they find enough evidence to impeach, they vote for it, similar to an Grand Jury indictment. It is then sent to the Senate, where the trial phase of impeachment occurs.
Rep. Luria has seen enough evidence, in her opinion, to indict. So have several others. If you pay attention to the facts, you should be aware that Mr. Trump appears to have leveraged national security support for an ally for personal political gain. The term “bribery”, which appears in the Constitution wrt impeachment, is now being used. Now it is up to the investigation to prove it.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
To add a little more: In a Grand Jury, the defense is usually NOT heard. The defense gets to make it’s case during the trial. In impeachment, that occurs during the Senate trial overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Also, the GOP is given the opportunity to call witnesses. They do need to be germane to the charges being discussed. Wanting the Whistle blower to testify is a grandstand play and now irrelevant as the complaints have all been backed up by others who had first hand knowledge of the charges in question.
And if Hunter Biden gets called, then the Democrats could easily call Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner for the same reasons. None of those three are actually germane to the charges being contemplated. – IMHO
LikeLiked by 3 people
If Luria had heard enough, without the hearings having taken place, then she should SPECIFICALLY declare what ‘high crime or misdemeanor’ she believes Trump has committed and what evidence she bases that conclusion upon.
Anything short of that, and she is just another partisan hack who misrepresented herself to the 2nd District voters.
LikeLike
Horse hockey. Once again you show fealty to the criminal in the WH. You are ignoring what she has heard as a basis for her decision. I trust her judgement as she waited until she heard enough to vote for the inquiry and to vote for impeachment. Unless or until something drastic comes about in the hearings currently taking place, she is in the right to declare her decision.
If the actions that Trump has undertaken were done by a Democratic President, you would be building the case for impeachment yourself. You have claimed that some of Obama’s actions were impeachable (laughable, but you are entitled to your opinion). NOTHING Obama did comes any where near what Trump has done (and admitted to doing).
Bribery, attempted or carried out, falls into the crimes for impeachment in the Constitution. If you don’t see that, you need new glasses.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“ “I think the president of the United States abused his office for his personal gain,” Luria told a community meeting in Williamsburg, after one audience member shouted out that Congress was denying Trump due process.”
“Luria said she’s been up all night reading the depositions given to the House of Representatives committees conducting the impeachment inquiry.
“I’m not sure how you sleep at night reading these transcripts and seeing how the president of the United States has abused his office,” she said.”
https://www.pilotonline.com/government/nation/dp-nw-luria-impeachment-20191108-2d4ijv5wtje7blipsrzlv6rmfe-story.html
That is the link the LTE was referring too. Seems pretty clear why Luria is in favor of impeachment inquiries.
And she so stated with equal clarity.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Partisan hack? Coming from you that is milk out the nose funny.
The partisan hacks on display in this process are people like Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows and Devin Nunes and people such as yourself who cheer lead for their attempts to defend Trump with lies, irrelevancies and every changing but always laughable antics.
As for your demand for specifics, that is a matter for the Judiciary Committee to spell out but it is beyond obvious that the evidence publicly disclosed supports an article on Bribery and another on Contempt of Congress. There may also be one based on Obstruction of Justice as Mueller called upon Congress to consider.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “If Luria had heard enough, without the hearings having taken place, then she should SPECIFICALLY declare what ‘high crime or misdemeanor’ she believes Trump has committed and what evidence she bases that conclusion upon.”
That would be nice. Even the participants in a grand jury proceeding know the nature of the crime under review.
LikeLike
The “crime” will be spelled out in the Articles of Impeachment and the evidence will be presented in the Senate trial. No member of the “grand jury” has any reason to say anything at this stage. This complaint against Luria is just another distraction from the real issue – our President is a crook, con man and traitor. THAT is a BFD.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree; a BFD, indeed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
She did say specifically. “Up all night reading the depositions” means she did her homework. I would wager that is more than most Congressmen did. Especially Republicans.
Your Honor, I submit that Mssrs. Tabor’s and Roberts’ accusations against the Congresswoman from Virginia are without merit.
“Sustained”! 🏛
LikeLiked by 4 people
RE: “The ‘crime’ will be spelled out in the Articles of Impeachment and the evidence will be presented in the Senate trial.”
I am sure it will. In the meantime, the public would find it useful to know what this inquiry is about. So far the inquiry just looks like a fishing expedition.
LikeLike
“So far the inquiry just looks like a fishing expedition.
To that comment I say, “Meh”. To those who have actually paid attention to what is going on, it is pretty clear that Trump attempted to bribe the President of Ukraine to open investigations into that which has already been debunked, including corruption by the Biden’s. When brought to the attention of the WH that a whistle blower figured out what was happening, released the funds (thereby ending the bribery scheme) for the security of Ukraine. He has obstructed Congress by blocking testimony of others, and his staff attempted to cover up the entire thing by moving the transcript/summary of the July 25th phone call to a computer specifically designated for national security purposes.
Simply put, Donald Trump got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and I will not be surprised when he starts scapegoating Giuliani.
But to Trump loyalists, he did nothing wrong and no amount of evidence will change their mind. As I read somewhere recently, Trump is walking down 5th Ave and has pulled the trigger. And it is we the people who are the victims.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Roberts
Re : “So far the inquiry just looks like a fishing expedition.”
Uh, no. That is the opposite of the truth.
The inquiry has laser-focused on a the single crime of the President committing BRIBERY and extortion. Not just in a single phone call, but over the course of months. Every witness has added corroborating evidence making it impossible for any sentient, English-speaking human being to doubt that he committed the acts alleged. If you actually believe this whole thing is a “fishing expedition”, then … well, enough said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Your Honor, I submit that Mssrs. Tabor’s and Roberts’ accusations against the Congresswoman from Virginia are without merit.”
Homework or not, has. Ms. Luria stated what she believes the impeachable offense to have been? Can you repeat it (for the benefit of the court)?
LikeLike
Read the depositions. It was obviously in there.
They are public knowledge now.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why should he read them. Lindsay Graham didn’t. Nor did several others involved on the GOP side of the aisle.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Why should I read them?”
No other Republican has. Now there’s a tell.
Suit yourself. 🙈
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oops. Mea Culpa. Adam spoke, not John.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Forgiven. Just like a good Christian. Except, I’m not. LOL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The depositions are part of a staged and coached production, not at all different from a Saturday Night Live skit. They were little more than a rehearsal for the hearings.
But there are important differences between a Grand Jury and these hearings.
Most important, because there is a lack of due process and fairness, the proceedings are kept private to avoid prejudicing a future jury, or damaging the reputations of the innocent.
These hearings preserve the unfairness and slander, but they are front page news without an opportunity for challenge or rebuttal.
In any case, I reiterate that absent an explanation by Luria of what SPECIFIC high crime or misdemeanor and the basis for her beliefs, Luria is a partisan hack, who lied to her constituents that she would be independent of Democrat leadership and represent the 2nd district.
LikeLike
…”not at all different from a Saturday Night Live skit”…
You really should have put that statement in quotes as it was lifted from several commentators on Fox News. SHAME.
LikeLike
Odd, I never heard it there. I guess it’s just one of those comparisons that is so obvious everyone thinks of it.
LikeLike
I have seen it quoted several times from different sources. Fox News was the most prominent one.
LikeLike
@Tabor
So because Luria has seen the evidence and, like any rational human being, has concluded that Trump has committed impeachable offenses involving bribery, extortion and clear violations of campaign laws that makes her a liar? And a “partisan hack?” With all due respect that charge is exactly what a partisan hack would have to say.
Your post is very typical of the other Trump apologists – no substance and no evidence. Just childish name-calling and attacks on the process which, by the way, follows rules and precedents established by the GOP.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Apparently, Williamsburg has some high-functioning idiots who do not understand that an impeachment is not a “guilty and should be removed” vote, but only “there’s enough to warrant a Senate trial.”
Personally, I would prefer that the House first vote to censure, and THEN vote to impeach. Two separate actions. This will allow the GOP the opportunity to tell Trump to “knock it off”, before the Senate inevitably overrules the impeachment in the trial.
I do believe that you could get 75% support for censure.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“I do believe that you could get 75% support for censure.”
Your really are a bit naive. 😉 I don’t think there is any way in Hell or Washington, D.C. (are they the same?) you could get ANY GOP member of Congress to even vote for censure. Trump would attack them en masse adn they woudl get primaried by even more ardent supporters of the Great Orange Menace. This is the greatest fear of the GOP Congressional members.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is one way… a voice vote in the dark. Why, you mightn’t even hear a single “nay”, ‘ceptin’ from Lindsey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The letter-writer gets just about exactly zero interest from me, though, I just had to comment re: one of his statements about the House Rep . . .
“After all, she’s heard one side of the story, and hearing the other side would only confuse her.”
Ha. Ha.
That was more than a little ironic. The letter-writer probably already knows that ‘djt’ can’t follow a conversation or understand ANY side of a conversation which isn’t HIS; I do think Ms. Luria has been seeing the OTHER SIDE of this investigation – even when it was only in its brewing state. Heck – anyone with 1/4 of a brain has seen both sides of this one, and guess what – WE’RE NOT CONFUSED AT ALL; plus, we didn’t miss that sexist little ‘confusion’ comment.
This whole impeachment surrounds two things – ‘djt’ getting a foreign country to investigate an American citizen, hoping to find dirt on his very possible opponent next year. And, as always – it’s about keeping Mr. Putin as happy as possible as we’ve seen in Ukraine. And, how ironic is it that AGAIN, just as in 2016, ‘djt’ is begging Putin to keep his minions digging, digging, digging into America’s upcoming general election. Tick, tick, tick and drip, drip, drip.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This whole impeachment nonsense rivals Saturday night live. There has been nothing unlawful uncovered, just a bunch of “I don’t like your style” political garbage because impeachment is not actually based on law but pure opinion. High crimes and misdemeaners isnt even defined for christ sake. All of the witnesses are nothing but Democrat show clowns with only second hand hearsay and opinion. The ex-ambassader even boo hooed about feeling bad for being fired. Thats all she had to offer. SO WHAT??? Trump may not be a likable person but he is absolutely correct that the impeachment is a public disgrace. Nothing but a gaggle of liberal babies trying to look important. Comedy at its best, sheer stupidity at its worse.
LikeLike
“ High crimes and misdemeaners isnt even defined for christ sake.”
“ It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.”
“ Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.”
https://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
The farmers relied heavily on English common law for obvious reasons. In this case the House is looking at abuse of power.
The founders wanted to have a method of removing a president or other high elected officials whose actions constituted a detriment to governance and justice. It is a political action for the most part. But that is why it was made difficult to enact, both impeachment and the trial to remove from office.
At least this impeachment inquiry is focused on a single subject: whether Trump used public money to coerce a newly installed president to investigate political rivals. Clinton’s impeachment came after a 6 year “investigation” starting with real estate deals before he was elected and ending with a $55 million blue dress. And those depositions were all secret with a constant flow of selective leaks to damage the President. Then he lied under oath about committing adultery and Bingo, the Republicans had him.
Trump is getting all the breaks Clinton never did.
But, I am sure my history recollections and references were a waste to the faithful. But it is cold and rainy and my pain pills have kicked in.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t know how my reply moved down but see it below. Maybe the wine is kicking in..lol
LikeLike
paying for false stories of hookers peeing on beds is looking for dirt on an opponent.
Determining if a Vice President coerced a foreign government to fire a prosecutor or otherwise stop the investigation into a company that was paying his son $50,000 a month to do nothing is an investigation into corruption of our foreign aid process.
Or is Joe Biden above the law simply because he is running for President?
President Trump is running for President too, does that make investigating him by Democrats a crime?
LikeLike
Trump said the Republicans are “human scum”. Well, not all of them, just those who failed to kiss the royal posterior.
The question then becomes whether “human scum” are beneath the law. If so, the the Democrats are above the law. Ipso facto….
So it is written, so it shall be.
(Thank you Yul Brynner.)
I am sure you agree now that I ‘splained it. 🐒
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, that makes as much sense as the Impeachment Inquiry hearings.
But you fail to address the central question. Is Joe Biden above the law because he is running for President. Were he not running would here be any reason to not investigate?
LikeLike
Were Biden not running, Trump would never have talked to Zelensky except maybe the first congratulatory call.
Even the Crowdstrike fiasco was probably a “cover” to deflect the attention from “just about Joe”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just to clarify, there is no reason to investigate. The gas company brought on several prominent people with connections. Not because they are whiz kids in natural gas or business gurus, but, like most boards everywhere, because they had contacts with influential people or were influential themselves.
And if I recall, Biden was pressuring to get rid of the prosecutor because he WASN’T doing his job rooting out corruption. And so were most other nations and the IMF.
Personally, I suspect that Trump is clueless and apathetic regarding ethics in government. He had none in business so why should government be any different? Plus he has fired anybody with experience dealing in both our government and foreign policy.
He has burned so many bridges that there are few in government other than a handful of scared GOP Congressmen that will truly back him when he’s in a jam. And Kelly Anne, of course.
That’s my take, anyway.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How do you know there’s nothing to investigate without investigating? (Something I remember you writing)
There is more than enough probable cause. The ousted prosecutor said that before he was fired he was told that Burisma was a protected organization and that he should leave it alone. That was shortly after Hunter Biden was brought in board. Of course that could be coincidence but absent an honest investigation, we don’t know.
But you still have not answered, does running for President make Joe Biden immune to investigation?
LikeLike
You keep asking a question as to whether Biden is immune because he is running for office. Pretty obvious that he is not. But that has absolutely nothing to do with Trump’s inept attempt to pressure Zelensky.
Do you really believe any of this would be going on if Biden had never entered the race?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, because Trump is pissed about the origins of the Russian Collusion Hoax and Ukraine may have a part in that.
LikeLike
Horse feathers! Without Biden being the front runner at the time, there would have been no reason to even mention his name. Nice attempt to cover, but a big time FAIL!.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So your opinion is Trump is not acting like you want him to even though he broke no laws. Does that sum it up? Besides, even the central focus of the impeachment is far from being proved, only seems so by some biased people through hearsay. Really?? Are you hanging your hat on that?? The funny part is Republicans keep shredding the “witnesses” assertions in mere seconds. Wonder how long it will be before Schitt decides we can’t have that anymore. Ok, i guess it is sheer stupidity after all.
LikeLike
Your summation is wrong. Abuse of power is a high crime and the Constitution specifies very clearly a remedy for that.
For me I wish this impeachment inquiry was not going on. Much prefer to fire him with the election. But Trump forced the hand. He tried to cover it up, then partially covered it up with a doctored transcript, then his defense was no one actually said “quid pro quo”, then quid pro quo was the norm, then Ukraine got the aid (no harm, no foul), and the best one of all, Graham says the regime is too incompetent to pull off such a deal.
I think now the GOP talking point is that Trump did all of the above, but “come on guys, is it impeachable?”.
We are watching history. A power struggle between the two branches. It has happened before. It’s gonna happen again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Once again, your opinion is Trump abused his power even though there is no provable connection with what is asserted. At worst he may have held up aid to gain a promise to investigate corruption as a whole but even that is unproven, only secondhand overhead opinion testimony. That is common in foreign policy though. Every witness has had nothing but blank stares after a few seconds of Republican questions of show me the law or the offense. The left has been conducting a power struggle war since Trump got elected and this will fail too. Nothing but 2020 left wing election hype they hope will help them. Huge risk.
LikeLike
Ignorance truly is bliss, it seems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Luria has abandoned all pretense of moderation and become a shill for Pelosi and a fund-raiser for the party.
Look no further than the Democrats’ suggestion that Luria is embattled in “one of the closest toss-up races in the country”–before she even had a declared opponent.
LikeLike
Jim. the second has flipped four times in the past four elections ( or so it seems). It is ALWAYS “one of the closest toss-up races in the country”. And it doesn’t matter who is in the seat.
LikeLike