Impeachment Hearings

[GMDino]

Moments after claiming he "always defends State Department employees," Pompeo proves that he was lying by declining to defend State Department employee Yavonovich against Trump's smears pic.twitter.com/n6wMiklhjn

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 18, 2019

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-16-2019, 03:29 AM)Dill Wrote: Well, on the positive side you have developed a kind of fan base here on Bengalsboard--letting us some of us know how all this looks from the "outside" and that we're still probably sane, despite what we are seeing in these hearings every day.

I am shocked as you when I watch a decent, honorable person, who gets a deserved standing ovation when she leaves the hearing room, get maligned by a president who witness intimidates in real time, and then I turn to Fox and hear what a DISASTER all this was for the desperate Democrats. Cut to William Barr presenting alternative facts at the Federalist Society about the WAR ON TRUMP which has been waged in on every level in every corridor of power to take down a duly elected president, but current investigation is soon bringing the perps to light (as he has been saying for months). 

The "bias alert"--I think I can explain that. Bias hunting sounds critical, but it is really an appeal to prejudice, to pre-judgment. Fox commentators move the analysis away from facts and law and towards who belongs to what party or was a never Trumper or is a globalist or deep-stater because maybe his wife contributed to a Democrat, and that seals it.  Your complaint that Trump laughs at "ugly" women accusing him of rape, or that his Syria mis-step killed 300 of our Kurdish allies in a day, immediately signals your bias. Mentioning that he lied about what was on his first phone call to Ukraine just confirms what we already know about your hate. You got that from the NYT, right? Trump supporters can discount people with your biased facts all day. Trust Barr and Hannity on the Mueller Report, though. Why read something you KNOW is biased?

It was the opposite when Obama was president: rumors and "hearsay"circulated AS fact. Trump is elected and fact is suddenly hearsay. Or just not fact. And it's working. ("Read the transcript" lol)   Hillary's careless email use violated our NATIONAL SECURITY and the Clinton Foundation peddled influence!!! But Trump is elected and suddenly, WEEKLY red flags on security/clearance protocols and conflicts of interest signal a "coup d'etat" to undo an election. Like a school of minnows all together suddenly changing direction.

You seem overly puzzled that slander and lies bring no consequences in our great nation. That has me wondering if Austria is maybe like Germany, with people cited and sued for tapping their forehead at someone.  Tap all you want here. lol We have FREEDOM!  It makes us great!

Yes, everything you describe is a side effect of having a 1st amendment.  I'd take that every day and twice on Sunday over Europe where you can be arrested and imprisoned for having the wrong opinions.  If you're going to go too far, erring on the side of freedom is the right way to go, every time.  Or do you disagree about our first amendment rights?

[CJD]

You guys looking forward to Vindman testimony tomorrow? :) They also have the Pence aide who listened to the phone call too. It'll be a regular "This didn't show up on the transcript but was said"-apalooza in Congress!

[*bfine32*]

(11-18-2019, 10:02 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You guys looking forward to Vindman testimony tomorrow? :) They also have the Pence aide who listened to the phone call too. It'll be a regular "This didn't show up on the transcript but was said"-apalooza in Congress!

To me it's all just become white noise. I'm just glad we live in a country where our voice can be heard every 4 years at a minimum. At this point I just want it to stop. Either impeach him or drop it. Dude has been under "investigation" every since he put his hand on the bible. 

[CJD]

(11-18-2019, 10:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To me it's all just become white noise. I'm just glad we live in a country where our voice can be heard every 4 years at a minimum. At this point I just want it to stop. Either impeach him or drop it. Dude has been under "investigation" every since he put his hand on the bible. 

Yea, he has been investigated a lot.

That tends to happen when you can't stop doing shady shit.

As far as impeaching vs dropping it, I think the Democrats are holding out hope that they can still convince the Republican Senators that Trump needs to be removed. They're chasing the Nixon style removal where the Republicans go to Trump and tell him that they are literally unable to not remove him due to the extensive evidence of his wrongdoing, but they don't want to because it will jeopardize their re-election campaigns. In an ideal world, Trump will agree to resign in order to help them stay in power by not having to record their vote.

It's all a fantasy, of course. Trump doesn't have the mental strength to resign. He's literally incapable of it. And the Republican Senators seem to be absolutely petrified of Trump's fan base to the point where they are outright denying plain facts.

It's kind of sad, but also unexpected. He'll eventually be impeached and then won't be removed and we'll move on to the 2020 election.

But in the mean time it is entertaining seeing all these Republicans bending over backwards trying to invent reasons to still support Trump haha.

[Dill]

(11-18-2019, 09:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, everything you describe is a side effect of having a 1st amendment.  I'd take that every day and twice on Sunday over Europe where you can be arrested and imprisoned for having the wrong opinions.  If you're going to go too far, erring on the side of freedom is the right way to go, every time.  Or do you disagree about our first amendment rights?

Trump's real-time witness-intimidating tweets are a "side effect" of the 1st Amendment?
If you are ready to err on the side of freedom, then surely you can tolerate the CRITIQUE of slander,
disinformation and other such side effects.

Don't know what you mean by "if you're going to go to far" and "do you disagree about our first amendment rights?" 
 
What, all of them?? 

What sort of "wrong opinions" get one arrested in Europe (everywhere in Europe?), and why?   

Germany?  Hungary?  The same?

[*bfine32*]

(11-18-2019, 10:58 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, he has been investigated a lot.

That tends to happen when you can't stop doing shady shit.

As far as impeaching vs dropping it, I think the Democrats are holding out hope that they can still convince the Republican Senators that Trump needs to be removed. They're chasing the Nixon style removal where the Republicans go to Trump and tell him that they are literally unable to not remove him due to the extensive evidence of his wrongdoing, but they don't want to because it will jeopardize their re-election campaigns. In an ideal world, Trump will agree to resign in order to help them stay in power by not having to record their vote.

It's all a fantasy, of course. Trump doesn't have the mental strength to resign. He's literally incapable of it. And the Republican Senators seem to be absolutely petrified of Trump's fan base to the point where they are outright denying plain facts.

It's kind of sad, but also unexpected. He'll eventually be impeached and then won't be removed and we'll move on to the 2020 election.

But in the mean time it is entertaining seeing all these Republicans bending over backwards trying to invent reasons to still support Trump haha.

Nah, elected officials have been doing shady shit since the first time civilization cast a vote. 

I do agree the current situation is "entertaining" but I'm not sure the republicans have a monopoly on the comedians involved. The Dems often open cans of worms that they live to regret. Just ask Garland or the next Dem elected POTUS. 

[Dill]

(11-18-2019, 10:58 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's kind of sad, but also unexpected. He'll eventually be impeached and then won't be removed and we'll move on to the 2020 election.

The House vote for impeachment is itself a kind of super censure, even if Trump is not removed, and even if its "partisan" because of Republican party discipline.

Also, it forces Republicans to publicly place tribe over rule of law, deny obvious facts, slander honorable people, accept the continuing risk to national security, and the like.

[GMDino]

So many still claiming to not defend Trump while defending him.

THAT is the entertaining thing.

[Benton]

(11-18-2019, 10:58 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, he has been investigated a lot.

That tends to happen when you can't stop doing shady shit.

As far as impeaching vs dropping it, I think the Democrats are holding out hope that they can still convince the Republican Senators that Trump needs to be removed. They're chasing the Nixon style removal where the Republicans go to Trump and tell him that they are literally unable to not remove him due to the extensive evidence of his wrongdoing, but they don't want to because it will jeopardize their re-election campaigns. In an ideal world, Trump will agree to resign in order to help them stay in power by not having to record their vote.

It's all a fantasy, of course. Trump doesn't have the mental strength to resign. He's literally incapable of it. And the Republican Senators seem to be absolutely petrified of Trump's fan base to the point where they are outright denying plain facts.

It's kind of sad, but also unexpected. He'll eventually be impeached and then won't be removed and we'll move on to the 2020 election.

But in the mean time it is entertaining seeing all these Republicans bending over backwards trying to invent reasons to still support Trump haha.

I doubt trump would resign if asked, he thinks he's bigger than a party. But I think that may be their plan anyway. Mitch is never agreeable to anything the Dems want, but he's been amicable in this. I think he's hoping they can get trump to resign , then run the more traditional pence and pick up trump voters and actual gopers.

[BakertheBeast]

All the persons who have first hand knowledge of what Trump said on those calls, Trump is keeping them from testifying. The so called transcripts are edited and not complete. Jock strap Jordan keeps repeating the "its all hearsay" line. If trump didn't do anything wrong, why won't he let the people who were involved first hand in those conversations speak up? Do the Repubs think that people are that stupid? Maybe they are.
Just like his tax returns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-18-2019, 11:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump's real-time witness-intimidating tweets are a "side effect" of the 1st Amendment?

If he's not breaking the law, yeah.  This is an obvious answer.

Quote:If you are ready to err on the side of freedom, then surely you can tolerate the CRITIQUE of slander,
disinformation and other such side effects.

Of course.  When have I not?  Or are you confusing attacking someone's position with attacking their right to state said position?  I'm thinking it may be the latter.

Quote:Don't know what you mean by "if you're going to go to far" and "do you disagree about our first amendment rights?" 
 
What, all of them?? 

There is no "all of them".  You either agree with free speech or you do not.  In Europe they do not.  I'm asking you if you agree with them.  It's not that complicated.

Quote:What sort of "wrong opinions" get one arrested in Europe (everywhere in Europe?), and why?   

Germany?  Hungary?  The same?

Ahh, I see we're going to quibble with the lump assertion of Europe as a homogenous entity rather than address the substance of the post.  I could see why that type of obfuscation would be attractive to you in this instance.  As for the opinions and statements that will get you arrested in "Europe", I'm not here to do your research for you.  Use the google machine, examples are not hard to find.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/world/europe/germany-36-accused-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html

[GMDino]

What will be interesting to watch will be how the "support the troops" Right Wing attack him over and over.


btw, this is first hand knowledge...not "hearsay".

VINDMAN: "When I reported my concerns...I did so out of a sense of duty. I reported my concerns in official channels to the proper authority in the chain of command. My intent was to raise these concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country" pic.twitter.com/xC3w39qsUT

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 19, 2019

 

[GMDino]

Somehow it seems very 2019 that the Lt Col Purple Heart Iraq veteran who will testify this am will be the focus of GOP attacks, according to reports, days after POTUS pardons soldiers convicted of war crimes by the US military itself.

— Susan Glasser (@sbg1) November 19, 2019

 

[hollodero]

(11-18-2019, 11:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do agree the current situation is "entertaining" but I'm not sure the republicans have a monopoly on the comedians involved. The Dems often open cans of worms that they live to regret. Just ask Garland or the next Dem elected POTUS. 

Seriously? You blame Democrats for the Garland situation?

[hollodero]

(11-19-2019, 10:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If he's not breaking the law, yeah.  This is an obvious answer.

Can I say "If you testify against me, you will get hurt" and call it an expression of free speech?

(11-19-2019, 10:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is no "all of them".  You either agree with free speech or you do not.  In Europe they do not.  I'm asking you if you agree with them.  It's not that complicated.

Eh... I agree halfway with you regarding the overreach of some European approaches, but the US also knows some superseeding principles to free speech. Like testifying under oath. Or like threats or calling for the murder of someone... right? Or this "fire in a theater" example...
...and in that sense, I'd argue there could be superseeding principles regarding TV news hosts and their calling folks not on their political side SOAB or idiot. That would not necessarily be against the first amendment to apply some additional rules of conduct. Is what I'd argue.

[GMDino]

(11-19-2019, 12:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: Seriously? You blame Democrats for the Garland situation?

In the Right Wing World everything is the Democrats fault.  Especially the guiltier their boy Trump looks.

I'm sure Democrats blame Republicans also.

However in this very specific case it is a bad take given the amount of shady stuff DJT has done and continues to do.

[hollodero]

Btw. I find it unbearable how the republicans try to reveal the whistleblower's identity. There is actually a law protecting his anonymity, right? If so, this is really spooky.

[GMDino]

The Republicans are trying to have a trial on Hunter Biden.

Ignoring it had been investigated.  Ignoring what the POTUS did was wrong and impeachable.

[Dill]

(11-19-2019, 10:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, I see we're going to quibble with the lump assertion of Europe as a homogenous entity rather than address the substance of the post.  I could see why that type of obfuscation would be attractive to you in this instance.  As for the opinions and statements that will get you arrested in "Europe", I'm not here to do your research for you.  Use the google machine, examples are not hard to find.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/world/europe/germany-36-accused-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html

LOL yes we are going to "quibble" about your reduction of Europe to "a homogenous entity." There's a great deal difference between controls on speech in Great Britain, Denmark and Sweden , on the one hand, and Hungary on the other. 

And we are going to quibble over your assumption that it is MY job to "research" your broad, reductive, and unsupported claims. Without that support there is really no "substance" to address. 

Your one linked example of bad Europe looks to me like a police action about to be found unconstitutional. Except for the public insult laws, I don't have a major problem with Germany's handling of speech. That goes for most of Europe.

(11-19-2019, 10:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is no "all of them".  You either agree with free speech or you do not.  In Europe they do not.  I'm asking you if you agree with them.  It's not that complicated.

There is an "all of them"--e.g. right to religious freedom, right of assembly, right to petition the government, and right to a free press as well.

LOL Either I reject all oversimplifications which pass into falsehood or I do not.  No country allows unrestricted speech, including the U.S. 

"Europe" is not a country. Different nations on that continent pass different laws controlling speech.  E.g. On the World Press Freedom Index of Reporters without borders, EIGHT of the top ten countries for press freedom hail from Europe.  SEVEN European countries are found in #s 11-20. The U.S. is 48th by their press measure. https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table.

So "Europe" by most respected measures does "agree" with free speech. NK, by most respected measures, does not. (Jeezus--that, at least, should not be "complicated.")

Opinion polling, like that of the Pew Research Center, typically shows public support for "free expression" highest in the U.S., edging out European countries like Poland and Spain. But poll opinions are not laws. The U.S. is perhaps more lenient on hate speech than any other country. Is that the test? NOT press freedom?

I have noticed that Trump supporters now often defend his actions by claiming he had a "right" to do one thing or another--recall an ambassador or dump our Kurdish allies. Do you see a free speech laws now playing a similar role in defense of Trump's and his supporters' public bad behavior? The potential for deflection and diversion would be greater than affirmation of his "rights" I suspect.