Impeachment Hearings

[Dill]

(11-19-2019, 10:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You absolutely strike me as someone who would love to criminalize speech they deem offensive.
Of which freedom of speech is the most important.  But yes, those are all of extreme importance as well.
Only when it causes direct harm.  Your quibbling exposes how weak you know your argument to be. 
NO!!!!!!!!! 
Freedom of press and freedom of speech are not the same thing, at all.  Thank you for adding a complete irrlevancy.  Yet more evidence you know you have a garbage argument.
I'll repeat since you're trying to obfuscate, FREEDOM OF PRESS IS NOT THE SAME AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
No, the test, and it's very simple, is what the government can arrest you for saying.  In that vein, the only one that matters for this argument, the US is light years ahead of "Europe".
Irrelevant to the point I am making.
I'll repeat, since you seem to have a tenuous grasp on the concept of free speech.  If the government can censure, arrest or harm you for your words, words that don't advocate direct harm to a person, then there is no free speech.  You clearly don't like free speech, which surprises no one familiar with your posting history.  But feel free to deflect from this with more overly verbose, and irrelevant to the point, points.

??? This seems rather a list of simple, unsupported assertions.

My statements are "deflecting" or "verbose" or "quibbling" or "obfuscating" or "complete irrelevancy."  Just are.  Argument by adjective.

"Freedom of press and freedom of speech are not the same thing, at all." Just aren't.

But seriously, how does one know they "just aren't"? By legal argument? By a court decision?

No, by repeating in all caps: "FREEDOM OF PRESS IS NOT THE SAME AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH."  JUST ISN'T! Argument by fiat.

Obviously, then, a country could have all manner of restrictions on the press and still have free speech. Legal scholars take note.

If I recognize that "direct harm" can be/is understood differently in different nations for different reasons, then I "clearly don't like free speech." But it is not irrelevant and "verbose" or "deflective" if you, speaking for everyone again, claim "no one is surprised, given my posting history."  

(11-19-2019, 10:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Cool story bro,  Why don't I spend half an hour listing the majority of European countries that fit my statement and carefully omitting those that do not.  Unlike you I don't care to spend hours crafting an overly wordy post that no one will read. 
Except I provided you an example.  Also, this is not an unknown subject.

Yes, why don't you? Serious question. Why does actually examining the laws of countries you are making claims about seem so "irrelevant"?  You say Europeans don't "agree" with free speech, but do they say that? You don't seem to know but you do link to some arrests in Germany for hate speech following a new law which may not pass constitutional test.  Light years behind us?  Just are? "Either there is free speech or there isn't." There is in the US but there isn't in North Korea--or Europe by that logic.  No "garbage argument" can change that equation.

People who want to make a serious point will do a half an hour (horrors!) of research to support it, rather than throw out an unsupported and overly general statement supported only by adjectives, caps and a stray emoticon. They don't assert that researching THEIR unsupported claim is someone else's job. 

But in this case, truthfully, you'd better off researching the political/legal history of free speech rather than wielding your own unexamined definition like some international legal touchstone. Until you do that research, you are just sharing impressions, however dogmatically asserted and accompanied by ever so many adjectives. And that research would have to include "irrelevancies" like the relation of free speech to non-government authorities, or questions like "Can the US really have more free speech than Sweden if Sweden's press is freer?" and the like.

Could you navigate such questions beyond a bald counter-assertion or two of your own, followed by assessments of the people who don't agree?

[Benton]

(11-19-2019, 11:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So we cannot go where the evidence leads us?

Seems a few more folks than Trump were charged by the Mueller investigation. 

We don't want to be transparent in this situation?

Separate from an impeachment, sure. If there's evidence the bidens or the whistleblower did wrong, go through the steps to investigate it. But this isn't that time.

If you go to a murder trial, they don't shift gears Midway and start investigating a witness who may have cheated on his taxes. There's a legal process for that.

This is just trying to distract from the issue. And it's just political manipulation.

[Belsnickel]

(11-19-2019, 09:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I just think the whistleblower should be questioned by cross. I think it would be important if he/she is selective in his/her sharing of information. For instance does this individual have something to gain in shutting down an investigation into Biden and his son.

They didn't do anything to shut down an investigation. Mostly because there was no investigation into Biden or his son, but also because that decision is up to Ukraine, not the US.

The investigation into Burisma was for activities that occurred prior to Hunter Biden being a part of the board. Joe Biden was acting on behalf of the administration with bipartisan support from Congress to seek removal of the prosecutor in Ukraine because he was not investigating corruption and there was evidence of corruption on his part. There is zero, I repeat zero, evidence of wrong doing by Joe Biden in this situation and there was never any investigation into that.

In addition, the whistleblower has offered to answer written questions from the committee. This was not satisfactory to Republicans.

(11-19-2019, 09:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get folks say "that's not what this is about" and that's why the Dems have decided not to ask Hunter to share his insight into the matter, but I thought we wanted transparency.

I'm okay with an investigation into Hunter Biden. That's a job for the DoJ, though, and really has nothing to do with this. Regardless of the Burisma investigation not having anything to do with him, it was some shady shit.

[GMDino]

Even the witnesses that the GOP WANTED didn't help their case.

The big moment.

Tim Morrison confirms that the Trump Administration conditioned military aid on launching an investigation into Trump's political rival, Joe Biden. pic.twitter.com/GWoWOnUZXi

— Zac Petkanas (@Zac_Petkanas) November 19, 2019

 

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 09:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They didn't do anything to shut down an investigation. Mostly because there was no investigation into Biden or his son, but also because that decision is up to Ukraine, not the US.

The investigation into Burisma was for activities that occurred prior to Hunter Biden being a part of the board. Joe Biden was acting on behalf of the administration with bipartisan support from Congress to seek removal of the prosecutor in Ukraine because he was not investigating corruption and there was evidence of corruption on his part. There is zero, I repeat zero, evidence of wrong doing by Joe Biden in this situation and there was never any investigation into that.

In addition, the whistleblower has offered to answer written questions from the committee. This was not satisfactory to Republicans.


I'm okay with an investigation into Hunter Biden. That's a job for the DoJ, though, and really has nothing to do with this. Regardless of the Burisma investigation not having anything to do with him, it was some shady shit.

To me it's just what I expected to get from Trump: A bully with no idea how things work and no regard to laws.  He has the power to have an investigation done but instead tries to use money (the only thing he really cares about in the world so he assumes everyone else can be bought too) to leverage Ukraine into helping him politically about it instead.

But to call back to bfines "be careful what you wish for" moment about investigating President's who "make mistakes" can we then start investigating every board Trump's kids are on?  Do they show up? How much do they get paid? Are they worthy of the job? What about his daughter having a government job? And Barr's? And others?

If we want to look at "corruption" we could start in this admin and work our way down for starters.

[GMDino]

And these are the people defending the POTUS.

You have to ask yourself if they are really this dumb.  (Spoilers: Yes.)

i don’t even know how we can hear both sides of a phone call from 5 miles away. it’s a miracle! https://t.co/KYvEQf6kdR

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) November 20, 2019

[BmorePat87]

(11-20-2019, 04:58 AM)Benton Wrote: Separate from an impeachment, sure. If there's evidence the bidens or the whistleblower did wrong, go through the steps to investigate it. But this isn't that time.

If you go to a murder trial, they don't shift gears Midway and start investigating a witness who may have cheated on his taxes. There's a legal process for that.

This is just trying to distract from the issue. And it's just political manipulation.

(11-20-2019, 09:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They didn't do anything to shut down an investigation. Mostly because there was no investigation into Biden or his son, but also because that decision is up to Ukraine, not the US.

The investigation into Burisma was for activities that occurred prior to Hunter Biden being a part of the board. Joe Biden was acting on behalf of the administration with bipartisan support from Congress to seek removal of the prosecutor in Ukraine because he was not investigating corruption and there was evidence of corruption on his part. There is zero, I repeat zero, evidence of wrong doing by Joe Biden in this situation and there was never any investigation into that.

In addition, the whistleblower has offered to answer written questions from the committee. This was not satisfactory to Republicans.


I'm okay with an investigation into Hunter Biden. That's a job for the DoJ, though, and really has nothing to do with this. Regardless of the Burisma investigation not having anything to do with him, it was some shady shit.

This is an important point. This is a Congressional impeachment inquiry on the President of the United States. It's not the same as the DOJ special counsel investigation that had the authority to investigate all criminal activity related to the broad topic of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

There's nothing to be gained by interviewing the Whistleblower. Any potential personal or partisan bias is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the President committed an impeachable act. Republicans, however, need a reason to justify their acceptance of corruption and incompetence, hence the noise surrounding the whistleblower. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-20-2019, 10:47 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is an important point. This is a Congressional impeachment inquiry on the President of the United States. It's not the same as the DOJ special counsel investigation that had the authority to investigate all criminal activity related to the broad topic of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

There's nothing to be gained by interviewing the Whistleblower. Any potential personal or partisan bias is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the President committed an impeachable act. Republicans, however, need a reason to justify their acceptance of corruption and incompetence, hence the noise surrounding the whistleblower. 

LTC Vindman was on the call thus has first hand knowledge and filed his own complaint. Thus the Republican’s complaints about hearsay and the whistleblower’s identity are moot.

[Belsnickel]

I don't know why I'm doing this to myself, but I have C-SPAN up on my other monitor.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-20-2019, 03:57 AM)Dill Wrote: ??? This seems rather a list of simple, unsupported assertions.

And I think we're done here.  Sorry I didn't meet your lofty standards for acceptable discourse professor.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 11:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know why I'm doing this to myself, but I have C-SPAN up on my other monitor.

I've listened (not watched) to every day.  Had to miss yesterday afternoon due to meetings until 8pm.

All the blathering from the GOP aside I just have learned to hate the sound of Jim Jordan's voice.  He's so whiny.

[Belsnickel]

Sondland providing some interesting testimony in his opening statement. Claims of obstruction by the White House, worked with Giuliani under the express directive of Trump. They didn't think they were doing anything wrong, and because of this they were making folks aware on the NSC and State Dept. of the efforts going on. Doubles down on Giuliani requesting a quid pro quo for the meeting and that he was expressing the desires of Trump. Was never given an explanation of withholding of aid and came to believe that it was also being withheld due to the quid pro quo.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 11:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sondland providing some interesting testimony in his opening statement. Claims of obstruction by the White House, worked with Giuliani under the express directive of Trump. They didn't think they were doing anything wrong, and because of this they were making folks aware on the NSC and State Dept. of the efforts going on. Doubles down on Giuliani requesting a quid pro quo for the meeting and that he was expressing the desires of Trump. Was never given an explanation of withholding of aid and came to believe that it was also being withheld due to the quid pro quo.

Well sure, but what about the whistleblower?!?!

[Belsnickel]

An American solider and family are under government protection.

Because they're under attack.

Not by terrorists.

Not by foreign enemies.

They're under attack by the President of the United States. https://t.co/6ggEFWm3Hu

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) November 20, 2019

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-20-2019, 11:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sondland providing some interesting testimony in his opening statement. Claims of obstruction by the White House, worked with Giuliani under the express directive of Trump. They didn't think they were doing anything wrong, and because of this they were making folks aware on the NSC and State Dept. of the efforts going on. Doubles down on Giuliani requesting a quid pro quo for the meeting and that he was expressing the desires of Trump. Was never given an explanation of withholding of aid and came to believe that it was also being withheld due to the quid pro quo.

It's all BS.  I don't need to watch any "evidence."

[Belsnickel]

(11-20-2019, 11:52 AM)GMDino Wrote: Well sure, but what about the whistleblower?!?!

He is just driving that bus over Trump and Giuliani. Forward and reverse.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 11:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: He is just driving that bus over Trump and Giuliani. Forward and reverse.

I think Trump thought Rudy would get it the worst and take the fall for him.

Doesn't seem Sondland got that memo.

Trump ordered everything, the state department covered everything up.

Not a good look.

But I'm sure there will be a strong defense really soon.

[Belsnickel]

(11-20-2019, 11:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think Trump thought Rudy would get it the worst and take the fall for him.

Doesn't seem Sondland got that memo.

Trump ordered everything, the state department covered everything up.

Not a good look.

But I'm sure there will be a strong defense really soon.

Sondland is making sure everyone knows that everyone in the White House was aware of what was going on. He really is just loading up the bus and driving it off a cliff.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 12:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sondland is making sure everyone knows that everyone in the White House was aware of what was going on. He really is just loading up the bus and driving it off a cliff.

Can't wait to see how he is a Never Trumper or member of the Deep State.

[CJD]

So...I'm just a simple, country engineer...but this except from Sondland's Opening Statement...

Quote:As I testified previously, Mr Giuliani’s requests were a Quid Pro Quo for arranging a White House visit for Pres Zelenskyy. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the Unites States and we knew these investigations were important to the President.

Is this not everything we need? I'm not sure I understand what else there is to discuss...