Impeachment Hearings

[hollodero]

(01-28-2020, 12:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well the racistracistracist argument seemed to work for eight years so they are just trying a variation on that.  

My issue with this is the following: I don't see that widespread racism accusations. They sure are there, and I'm as annoyed by those things as anyone. But in my observation, for every unfair racism accusation of the left there are 5-10 assertions that "the left calls anyone racist that disagrees with them" coming as an argument from the right.

And in the end, reflexivley accusing "the left" of crying racist all the time is just as disingenuous as unfair racism accusations.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 12:17 PM)Dill Wrote: That is a good point.  We need to hear why Biden thinks he was qualified to sit on the board of an energy company.  But the Dems don't want that because they know how the Trump administration has fought nepotism for years.

If it doesn't fit Biden, you must acquit Trump!!

As a defense it's a completely legitimate approach to set up a legitimate reason for Trump so inquire about an investigation that is outside just wanting to hurt a political opponent.  

[hollodero]

(01-28-2020, 12:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: As a defense it's a completely legitimate approach to set up a legitimate reason for Trump so inquire about an investigation that is outside just wanting to hurt a political opponent.  

I find it tough to argue that this investigations into US citizens should be led by a foreign country.

If the Bidens warrant an investigation, the US justice system would be the one to be tasked with that. Everything else would be weird.

-- Also, though it might not be the center of it all, Trump also demanded announcing investigations into "Ukrainian 2016 election meddling". This can not possibly seen as an honest inquiry. Especially after Trump ignored all the real and confirmed Russian election meddling.

[GMDino]

(01-28-2020, 12:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: As a defense it's a completely legitimate approach to set up a legitimate reason for Trump so inquire about an investigation that is outside just wanting to hurt a political opponent.  

Except DJT *still* can not have used the funding as a bargaining chip for it AND that kind of investigation should be conducted via our justice department...not a foreign country through the POTUS' personal lawyer.

And that doesn't even go into Trump only wanting an announcement, not an actual investigation.

Or all the other possible corruption around the world that DJT had no problem sending money to those countries.  Say, just for example....Israel. 

[fredtoast]

(01-28-2020, 12:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: As a defense it's a completely legitimate approach to set up a legitimate reason for Trump so inquire about an investigation that is outside just wanting to hurt a political opponent.  

No it isn't.

You can't accuse someone of corruption without any evidence of any corruption.  How can they investigate Hunter Biden without any allegations to investigate?

The key point is that Trump did not really want the investigation.  What he demanded was a PUBLIC ANNOUCEMENT of an investigation.  That would be all he needed to convince the rubes who follow FoxNews that Biden was corrupt.  They have been doing the same thing for years.  Make wild allegations with no factual basis and then acting like there are substance to the claims.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 12:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Except DJT *still* can not have used the funding as a bargaining chip for it AND that kind of investigation should be conducted via our justice department...not a foreign country through the POTUS' personal lawyer.

And that doesn't even go into Trump only wanting an announcement, not an actual investigation.

Or all the other possible corruption around the world that DJT had no problem sending money to those countries.  Say, just for example....Israel. 

I get all these arguments, but they are putting on a defense.  And to think a legitimate defense doesn't include legitimizing the investigation request is a bit ridiculous.

[Dill]

(01-28-2020, 12:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm willing to be educated here because i have not been paying close attention, but I don't see how the abuse of power stands.  Even the "attempt" seems to be inference and conjecture.  Obviously they aren't required to go by the same standard, but I don't think you could  possibly get a conviction in a criminal case.  

I know what the obstruction is based on, but I can never keep track or get a clear picture on what the president is and is not allowed to do in these cases so that one I don't really have an opinion on.  

I think it is the opposite. It would be much easier to get a conviction in a criminal case, assuming the defendant were not the president. Obstruction was a slam dunk in the Mueller Report--but Mueller though he could not indict a sitting president because that was the job of Congress. That presidential status, plus the power to (apparently) legally withhold incriminating evidence, are what complicates the impeachment case.

If I were an ordinary citizen accused of bribery and obstruction, I would not want to go to trial with the factual record and witness testimony collected thus far, especially given the testimony of my own bagman.

I certainly would not choose as a defense attorney someone whom, when she was a state AG, I had given 25,000 campaign dollars to help manage a suit against my scam university. All while trying to send the message that I take my duty to fight corruption oh so seriously.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 12:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't.

You can't accuse someone of corruption without any evidence of any corruption.  How can they investigate Hunter Biden without any allegations to investigate?

The key point is that Trump did not really want the investigation.  What he demanded was a PUBLIC ANNOUCEMENT of an investigation.  That would be all he needed to convince the rubes who follow FoxNews that Biden was corrupt.  They have been doing the same thing for years.  Make wild allegations with no factual basis and then acting like there are substance to the claims.

I would say the VP's son getting a seven figure salary in a foreign country with no knowledge of the field is a legitimate thing to investigate by itself.  And I think as a defense lawyer you would absolutely pursue this as a way to legitimize the request.  

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 12:40 PM)Dill Wrote: I think it is the opposite. It would be much easier to get a conviction in a criminal case, assuming the defendant were not the president. Obstruction was a slam dunk in the Mueller Report--but Mueller though he could not indict a sitting president because that was the job of Congress. That presidential status, plus the power to (apparently) legally withhold incriminating evidence, are what complicates the impeachment case.

If I were an ordinary citizen accused of bribery and obstruction, I would not want to go to trial with the factual record and witness testimony collected thus far, especially given the testimony of my own bagman.

I certainly would not choose as a defense attorney someone whom, when she was a state AG, I had given 25,000 campaign dollars to help manage a suit against my scam university. All while trying to send the message that I take my duty to fight corruption oh so seriously.

The obstruction I don't know about well enough, but give me some beyond reasonable doubt things.  I've read broad summaries of the evidence only.  

[GMDino]

(01-28-2020, 12:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I get all these arguments, but they are putting on a defense.  And to think a legitimate defense doesn't include legitimizing the investigation request is a bit ridiculous.

Except that that complete ignores the arguments.

The "defense" hasn't tried to legitimize it except to repeat that Trump wanted it done.

"Your honor my client said he wanted to rob the bank in his note and his words to the teller but can he not make a legitimate withdrawal?  Is it it against the law for him to take money from his account?  Why should the circumstances around who's account and why affect that?"

[Au165]

(01-28-2020, 12:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that you have failed completely at findinmg the truth and instead adopted the positions promoted by the right wing echo chamber.

When you compare the economy for the three years that Trump has been in control an dcompare it to the final three years of the Obama administration you will see that Obama created more jobs and the economy grew at the same rate excpet Obama did it with HALF of the deficit spending Trump has relied on.  The unfunded tax cuts Trump used to juice the economy resulted in the yearly deficit being twice as high under Trump as in the final years of the Obama administration.  Trump is not able to grow the economy any faster than Obama was without blowing up the dredit card for the US governemt.

Iran was not going to nuke Israel before Trump came along, but at least we had their nuclear program under control.  Now they are free to advance it as fast as they want.  Trump has made that situation worse.

Trump ended military exercises in South Korea to please North Korea and got NOTHING in return.  He got played like a chump.

You talk about other countries paying theior "fair share", but that is meaningless to us because it has not reduced our military spending at all.  In fact Trump is leaning on unnecessary increases in military spending in order to fluff the economy even more.

Trump has reduced health care available for people with pre-existing conditions.  He has offered no answer for the problem of unaffordable health care.

So basically you have not been looking for the truth.  You have been looking for sources that tell you what you want to hear.

We got a space force though...

[Belsnickel]

(01-28-2020, 12:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm willing to be educated here because i have not been paying close attention, but I don't see how the abuse of power stands.  Even the "attempt" seems to be inference and conjecture.  Obviously they aren't required to go by the same standard, but I don't think you could  possibly get a conviction in a criminal case.  

There has been a substantial amount of evidence from people that leads to the conclusion Trump withheld aid for an investigation into Biden that would include an announcement of said investigation. Several people familiar with the situation were under this impression and one with direct knowledge has stated this was the case in a public forum (and hopefully will get to be deposed).

Abuse of power is using the power of your office for personal gain. An investigation into Biden, who has been the most likely candidate to face Trump in the general since his announcement (though lately that is on shaky grounds), is a personal gain for Trump and is inviting a foreign state into our domestic affairs. The excuses for this, that his interest was corruption in Ukraine more generally, fails on its face. The prosecutor that Biden had sought fired was corrupt, was fired in part for not investigating Burisma, and Biden was doing the will of the Obama administration with the bipartisan support of Congress and the international community. Hunter Biden, while what he did was stupid, was within legal bounds and the concerns about Burisma were ones for events that took place prior to him becoming a member of the board. All of this is public information and well known in Washington. So what reason would Trump have for bringing up the Bidens specifically beyond trying to dig up dirt for personal gain?

Because of all of this information it appears that Trump was attempting to use the power of his office to smear a political rival utilizing a foreign power, which is a classic example of abuse of power. Abuse of power, no matter what Dershowitz (a criminal attorney, not a constitutional scholar, for the record) says, is what the Founders had in mind when thinking of impeachment.

All of this being said, I would truly like to see more witnesses and evidence. Right now, however, a reasonable person would objectively see a preponderance of evidence that abuse of power took place. The preponderance standard is typical for civil cases and can best be described as "more likely than not" that the abuse of power took place. I would also stand by the evidence being clear and convincing, or rather that it is highly probable the abuse of power took place, based on the information before us right now. I think that preponderance is enough of a standard for this process, though, as holding the office of POTUS is not a right. The Senate is not removing a right from someone if voting to remove them from office. They are not "overturning an election" because someone on that ticket will step right into place. So I feel a lower standard is necessary.

However, there is no clear guidance on this matter and to this day the standard of proof to be used is left up to the individual Senators. Those impeached often argue for the highest standard, House managers argue to the lowest. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46013 (pg 50)

(01-28-2020, 12:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I know what the obstruction is based on, but I can never keep track or get a clear picture on what the president is and is not allowed to do in these cases so that one I don't really have an opinion on.  

To be quite frank, that obstruction article should not have been there. That was a stupid move by the House and they damaged their case by including that in there. I completely agree with the arguments from the GOP/defense that exercising a constitutional right cannot be obstruction. The House's position is untenable and may be what prevents an effective argument from getting through to the general public.

[Dill]

(01-28-2020, 12:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I would say the VP's son getting a seven figure salary in a foreign country with no knowledge of the field is a legitimate thing to investigate by itself.  And I think as a defense lawyer you would absolutely pursue this as a way to legitimize the request.  

What crime could be involved here, that has not already been investigated?  Hunter Biden says his only responsibility was to oversee governance and transparency. He wouldn't have to know much about energy to do that.

I see a conflict of interest, which is gone now. Looks like the ask is that someone go find a crime cuz that will prove Trump was fighting corruption. And if they can't find one, just keep looking and looking. Benghazi.  But even if one were found, that would not absolve Trump of extortion given the curious amount of energy spent and legal risk incurred to "stop corruption" in this one small, specific sector of the Ukrainian economy.

(Personally, I am more concerned that Trump's daughter and son in law are getting WH salaries for advising in fields they know nothing about. US Middle East policy is far more consequential than than Burisma; Trump's battle against Biden nepotism speaks to more confused messaging.)

[hollodero]

(01-28-2020, 12:54 PM)Dill Wrote: (Personally, I am more concerned that Trump's daughter and son in law are getting WH salaries for advising in fields they know nothing about. US Middle East policy is far more consequential than than Burisma; Trump's battle against nepotism speaks to more confused messaging.)

Not to mention that said son-in-law then sold a money-losing scyscraper to Qatar, and in return they came out of the diplomatic doghouse. Talk about quid pro quo.

But no one cares about that one.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 12:54 PM)Dill Wrote: What crime could be involved here, that has not already been investigated?  Hunter Biden says his only responsibility was to oversee governance and transparency. He wouldn't have to know much about energy to do that.

I see a conflict of interest, which is gone now. Looks like the ask is that someone go find a crime. And if they can't find one, just keep looking and looking. Benghazi.  And even if one were found, that would not absolve Trump of extortion given the curious amount of energy spent and legal risk incurred to "stop corruption" in this one small, specific sector of the Ukrainian economy.

(Personally, I am more concerned that Trump's daughter and son in law are getting WH salaries for advising in fields they know nothing about. US Middle East policy is far more consequential than than Burisma; Trump's battle against nepotism speaks to more confused messaging.)

Again I'm talking about a defense only.  It's their job to make him look not guilty by trying to legitimize his actions.  Then people who are trying to show him as guilty put forth the arguments you make.  

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 12:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There has been a substantial amount of evidence from people that leads to the conclusion Trump withheld aid for an investigation into Biden that would include an announcement of said investigation. Several people familiar with the situation were under this impression and one with direct knowledge has stated this was the case in a public forum (and hopefully will get to be deposed).

Abuse of power is using the power of your office for personal gain. An investigation into Biden, who has been the most likely candidate to face Trump in the general since his announcement (though lately that is on shaky grounds), is a personal gain for Trump and is inviting a foreign state into our domestic affairs. The excuses for this, that his interest was corruption in Ukraine more generally, fails on its face. The prosecutor that Biden had sought fired was corrupt, was fired in part for not investigating Burisma, and Biden was doing the will of the Obama administration with the bipartisan support of Congress and the international community. Hunter Biden, while what he did was stupid, was within legal bounds and the concerns about Burisma were ones for events that took place prior to him becoming a member of the board. All of this is public information and well known in Washington. So what reason would Trump have for bringing up the Bidens specifically beyond trying to dig up dirt for personal gain?

Because of all of this information it appears that Trump was attempting to use the power of his office to smear a political rival utilizing a foreign power, which is a classic example of abuse of power. Abuse of power, no matter what Dershowitz (a criminal attorney, not a constitutional scholar, for the record) says, is what the Founders had in mind when thinking of impeachment.

All of this being said, I would truly like to see more witnesses and evidence. Right now, however, a reasonable person would objectively see a preponderance of evidence that abuse of power took place. The preponderance standard is typical for civil cases and can best be described as "more likely than not" that the abuse of power took place. I would also stand by the evidence being clear and convincing, or rather that it is highly probable the abuse of power took place, based on the information before us right now. I think that preponderance is enough of a standard for this process, though, as holding the office of POTUS is not a right. The Senate is not removing a right from someone if voting to remove them from office. They are not "overturning an election" because someone on that ticket will step right into place. So I feel a lower standard is necessary.

However, there is no clear guidance on this matter and to this day the standard of proof to be used is left up to the individual Senators. Those impeached often argue for the highest standard, House managers argue to the lowest. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46013 (pg 50)


To be quite frank, that obstruction article should not have been there. That was a stupid move by the House and they damaged their case by including that in there. I completely agree with the arguments from the GOP/defense that exercising a constitutional right cannot be obstruction. The House's position is untenable and may be what prevents an effective argument from getting through to the general public.

Thank you.  I totally get that a reasonable person can come to these conclusions.  There really seems no way to impose a standard, and there probably shouldn't be any.  just like "is this an impeachable offense" really means nothing as anything is impeachable if enough people agree, and there is no appeal so it's kind of a moot question if that's an appropriate use of the word.  

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 12:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: I find it tough to argue that this investigations into US citizens should be led by a foreign country.

If the Bidens warrant an investigation, the US justice system would be the one to be tasked with that. Everything else would be weird.

-- Also, though it might not be the center of it all, Trump also demanded announcing investigations into "Ukrainian 2016 election meddling". This can not possibly seen as an honest inquiry. Especially after Trump ignored all the real and confirmed Russian election meddling.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying I can understand the defense here.  I actually don't know what the defense's argument is here, I was just reacting to Dill's post.  I'm probably doing a disservice to this whole thread, but it's rather slow at work today. 

[fredtoast]

(01-28-2020, 12:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I would say the VP's son getting a seven figure salary in a foreign country with no knowledge of the field is a legitimate thing to investigate by itself. 

That is because you don't understand how large corporations work.

"Knowledge in the field" just refers to what Biden would be dealing with.  I know lawyers who have regulatory compliance jobs with nuclear power companies who don't know anything about nuclear power.  Their job is just interpreting statutory standards for compliance.  Same with people in acquisition roles for huge companies.  They don't have to know anything about what the company does.  All they have to do is handle purchasing orders and contracting with providers.

Hunter Biden dealt with issues of "corporate governance" with Burisma.  His education and work experience fully qualified him for that position.

How exactly would you begin an investigation into allegations of corruption against Hunter when you have no clue what those allegations are?  How do you investigate allegations that don't exist?

[*michaelsean*]

(01-28-2020, 02:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is because you don't understand how large corporations work.

"Knowledge in the field" just refers to what Biden would be dealing with.  I know lawyers who have regulatory compliance jobs with nuclear power companies who don't know anything about nuclear power.  Their job is just interpreting statutory standards for compliance.  Same with people in acquisition roles for huge companies.  They don't have to know anything about what the company does.  All they have to do is handle purchasing orders and contracting with providers.

Hunter Biden dealt with issues of "corporate governance" with Burisma.  His education and work experience fully qualified him for that position.

How exactly would you begin an investigation into allegations of corruption against Hunter when you have no clue what those allegations are?  How do you investigate allegations that don't exist?

 Are you saying they hired him for his ability? I doubt he even speaks their language. I have no problem with his getting a job because of who his father is. That's how the world works. As a defense team I would say that they would investigate to see if there was any deal made with his father to get his son a job. And yes I would absolutely bring up his father claiming to get the guy fired.  I have a hard time believing you would not follow this path if allowed which they are if you were the defense.  

[fredtoast]

(01-28-2020, 03:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I have a hard time believing you would not follow this path if allowed which they are if you were the defense.  

There is no path to follow.  There are no allegations.  How can you start an investigation when there is nothing to investigate?