How Do Public Impeachment Hearings Work? | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

As both parties prepare for public impeachment inquiry hearings, Ali Velshi breaks down exactly how those hearings will work this week and what we will be watching for. Aired on 11/11/19.
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

How Do Public Impeachment Hearings Work? | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

29 comments

  1. Hey republicans!
    Not too easy to defend t’rump when he’s already admitted to extorting Ukraine, is it?
    Fun to watch you all struggle though,
    America 😆😅

    1. There’s nothing there. The whole thing is just silly. It’s not even worth replying to you so I don’t know why am doing it. It’s just that you morons irritate me

    2. Ro G and also, I love run on sentences. I see them and write them all the time. And your emoji’s are quite nice too, booty. You’re a booty head

  2. Hunter Biden has no reason to testify, he has nothing to do with President Trump’s shakedown and the Republicans will be using Mr. Biden for the same political stunt the President is accuse of. GOP keep it real, we have enough of a clown show and deserve the truth. Whistleblowers are protected!! Get over it. Their report has been already backed up by the witnesses so far question. GOP you are a shameful lot!

    1. @musicfun the Whistleblower Protection Act would disagree with you along with Chuck Grassley’s Whistleblower Programs Improvement Act of 2019. You might benefit from a little research yourself before you disparage someone else.

    2. @princeoftidds – Whistleblowers ‘are’ to be protected from reprisals, not from their identity being revealed.

      And by the way, rarely are they actually protected from some sort of reprisal.

      We also just days ago, had a high profile Whistleblowing incident, with the leaked tapes of ABC having buried damning testimony on Epstein. CBS and ABC then immediately colluded to fire the ‘suspected’ Whistleblower, and got the wrong person. And making things worse, the MSM has virtually completely ignored the story.

      Conservatives know all about this, and they will give no quarter because of the hypocrisy. Trump may well have done wrong, but when the Left repeatedly admits nothing, what can you expect in return?

    3. @Jay Larsen Leakers and leaks *are not* whistleblowers nor their reports. The protections afforded *specifically* to whistleblowers in the intelligence community – are there to facilitate uncovering illegality and abuse by our government, in a safe and secure way that _does not_ involve having to leak potentially classified (national security compromising materials) to the public in order to uncover those illegalities and abuses, to extents that cannot be easily buried by dishonest actors.

      If we don’t uphold the integrity of this legal arrangement, whistleblowers will have no choice but to revert to leaking material publicly. And apart from the potentially very dangerous disclosure of classified materials, unlike the Inspector General, the press does not have tools nor the mandate to properly vet and investigate reports of abuse, and the person(s) doing the reporting.

      This person did everything by the book, as his/her government and country demands of them under penalty of law. Mr. Trump’s own IG vetted the whistleblower, and investigated the content of the report, thoroghly before deciding how to proceed. 10+ witnesses have now independantly testified under oath, confirming the material facts of the report. Both the whistleblower report, the IGs evaluatiob and the *actual* transcripts of those witness testimonies, are made public.

      Forcing testimony or disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity at this time, serves no legitimate purpose, it’s only practical function is the purpose of revealing their identity to discurage others from reporting abuse and criminality. And it would put the whistleblower’s safety in severe danger; The President has repeatedly, effectively called for their death. And there’s no lacking in violent lunatics in this country that would, and some that already have, murdered someone for far, far less.

      Exposing their identity now, is the equivalent of exposing someone during a gang killing investigation or trial, that called 911 anonymously to report having heard gunfire in the area. It serves no practical or material purpose for the case – and it’s only realistic intent is to facilitate intimidation and retribution against that person, and as a deterrent for anyone else, whom might ever concider calling in such a thing in the future.

    4. @pr0xZen – Leftists, always seeking to redefine things for their benefit. Whistleblowing is not confined to the Intelligence Community.

      If everything was by the book, why do you KNOW the Whistleblower is from ‘the Intelligence Community’?

      And how do you KNOW all the facts, when there was selective testimonies from closed door, one way street Dem Majority proceedings, and the ‘public hearings’ have not been conducted yet?

      Take a breath. Such proceedings would never be allowed in a real Court. This is only to influence Public perceptions. The Kangaroo Court Show Trial shenanigans will never get past the Senate, Professor.

  3. Remember when people were saying its Mueller Time? Remember when Mueller cleared Trump? Did you like that? Yea I did too that was awesome!

    1. @Bud Fudlacker remember when Robert mueller made it quite clear trump going to prison the minute he’s out of office, and made it quite clear that trumpet was full-blown criminal remember that.

  4. When our Founding Fathers met during the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia (May-Sept. 1787), *they established the impeachment process as the constitutional remedy for those public servants who would potentially violate the public trust.* The impeachment process was part of the carefully crafted system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and limited government with the consent of the governed, and other enlightened principles inherent to a constitutional republic.

    👉Our Founding Fathers recognized the fact that our public servants, our elected representatives and other government officials, were fallible men who could be corrupted and could break the chains binding them to the constitution to commit untold government mischief and subvert the republic.

    *Impeachment, according to the Founding Fathers, was the remedy for those officials who through professional or personal misconduct violated the public trust and vitiated our republican form of government.*

    Accordingly, Article VI, Paragraph 3, of our constitution provides, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, *both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution….”*

    And Article II, Section 4 notes, *”The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”*

    The Founding Fathers defined treason in Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 1: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

    *Bribery was, and remains, well understood, then and now — namely, the intention to corrupt or influence, particularly public policy, by offering, or a government official accepting, something such as money or favor, quid pro quo, his vote or support in a particular public policy matter.*

    Which brings us to *”other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”*
    The derivation of the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ has nothing to do with crimes in English common law for which public servants could be impeached,” *but had much to do with dishonorable conduct or a breach in the public trust.*

    👉 *In short, one of the aims of the constitution was to ensure that virtuous men would become the nation’s leaders, and impeachment was merely the remedy for those public servants whose misconduct resulted in betrayal of the public trust:*

    Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5 charges, *”The House of Representatives…shall have the sole Power of Impeachment*

    Article I, Section 3, Paragraph 6 and 7, predicate, *”The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.* 👈

    👉 Members of Congress have sworn to uphold the constitution, and this includes the unpleasant duty of proceeding with an investigation for possibly writing articles of impeachment, *when a lawful independent counsel submits “substantial and credible information” that impeachable offenses have been committed by officials who have betrayed our trust and violated our constitution — and this includes the President of the United States.* The survival of the rule of law in our constitutional republic hangs in the balance — and so does the strained moral and constitutional fiber of the nation. 

    *We owe it to the country to ascertain with certainty if the public trust (and the laws of the land) have indeed been violated by our sitting president and other government officials.*

    Going through this painful trial may be needed not only for the taming of corruption in the highest places within our government, *but per-haps even more importantly, to force our government to return to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the limitations of power enumerated in our constitution.* Yes, *this constitutional trial by fire may be what is needed for the utter purification of our nation, mired as it is in the political and moral decadence of our times.*

    1. Île-de- France The house of representatives is not following the rules of impeachment. They have not had a vote on impeachment. They have not allowed the Republicans to defend themselves. The worst murderer, The worst serial killer is allowed a defender. Quoting the constitution does nothing when you don’t understand what it means. Listen to the constitutional scholar Mark Levine and he can explain it to you. He has a bigger following than CNN, MSNBC, etc. where people listen to his show then those networks. He is a brilliant lawyer and A former assistant to the Attorney General under Ronald Reagan.

    2. *musicfun*

      Look, these aren’t my opinions, they aren’t open to interpretation, they aren’t things I’m making up. Take a few minutes with each one. Take an hour if you need it. *If i can raise your IQ by a single digit,* *this will have been a decent success.*

      *Capiche?*

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.