Impeachment Hearings

[CJD]

(11-20-2019, 02:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ok, let's play the game. Can we go with: Does this person have something to gain by stopping an investigation.

I will tell you, that if by the off chance Biden takes the Whithouse. The next four years are going to be as dysfunctional as the last 4. It's just everybody will have to change hats

Exactly why the Democrats shouldn't nominate Biden. He is damaged goods and is too involved with multiple bad policies and scandals throughout his career.

It would be much better to nominate Bernie who has had, to my knowledge, no sexual scandals, no abuse of power scandals, no shady business dealing scandals and, perhaps most relevantly, has essentially never changed his morals or convictions throughout his career.

If Bernie had, instead of calling himself a Democratic Socialist, correctly labeled himself a Social Democrat I genuinely think he'd be our President right now...

It's a shame how much words matter except when it comes to Donald Trump.

[*bfine32*]

(11-20-2019, 02:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Only if Biden is as corrupt as Trump.

Then he will be held to the same standards.

But how about a game where you try to refute what has been said and shown and proven about Trump instead?

Oh, today's testimony is damaging to Trump and the House should vote for articles of Impeachment today. Before today all we had was suspension and innuendo that Trump was demanding this investigation for personal gains. Today a man under oath stated directly the he demanded it for personal gains.

So if he's just a little less corrupt we can ignore it? Seems strange. I hope he's held to the same standard regardless.

[*bfine32*]

(11-20-2019, 02:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Exactly why the Democrats shouldn't nominate Biden. He is damaged goods and is too involved with multiple bad policies and scandals throughout his career.

It would be much better to nominate Bernie who has had, to my knowledge, no sexual scandals, no abuse of power scandals, no shady business dealing scandals and, perhaps most relevantly, has essentially never changed his morals or convictions throughout his career.

If Bernie had, instead of calling himself a Democratic Socialist, correctly labeled himself a Social Democrat I genuinely think he'd be our President right now...

It's a shame how much words matter except when it comes to Donald Trump.

If the DNC hadn't worked against Bernie he might be POTUS right know. I know he was linked to a questionable article while in college but that's the only dirty laundry I know of. Of course thee are those far more familiar with inner workings than I and one might blow the whistle. 

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 02:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, today's testimony is damaging to Trump and the House should vote for articles of Impeachment today. Before today all we had was suspension and innuendo that Trump was demanding this investigation for personal gains. Today a man under oath stated directly the he demanded it for personal gains.

So if he's just a little less corrupt we can ignore it? Seems strange. I hope he's held to the same standard regardless.

Well, I tried.  

You're funny.

[Belsnickel]

(11-20-2019, 02:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ok, let's play the game. Can we go with: Does this person have something to gain by stopping an investigation.

The report was still found credible by the IG, appointed by Trump. Is there a reason that your question matters? Motives speak to credibility. The Trump appointed IG found him to be credible. Multiple Trump appointees and career staffers have corroborated his claims in the report. So credibility has been established, which means the motives of the whitleblower are irrelevant and nothing more than a distraction.

(11-20-2019, 02:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I will tell you, that if by the off chance Biden takes the Whithouse. The next four years are going to be as dysfunctional as the last 4. It's just everybody will have to change hats

I don't disagree. I want Biden out of the race, and have from the start, for several reasons including this one.

[*bfine32*]

(11-20-2019, 02:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The report was still found credible by the IG, appointed by Trump. Is there a reason that your question matters? Motives speak to credibility. The Trump appointed IG found him to be credible. Multiple Trump appointees and career staffers have corroborated his claims in the report. So credibility has been established, which means the motives of the whitleblower are irrelevant and nothing more than a distraction.


I don't disagree. I want Biden out of the race, and have from the start, for several reasons including this one.

I'm not doubting the truth of anything the whistle blower said. But just as it's very important that we know Trump's motive for asking Ukraine to investigate; I think it's important that the courts know the whistle blower's motivation for shinning the light on it. Was his/her motivation simply upholding the rule of law or did he/she have a personal gain. Do you not think that's something the courts should know?  

[BmorePat87]

(11-20-2019, 12:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So...I'm just a simple, country engineer...but this except from Sondland's Opening Statement...


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

Because the GOP declared 2 weeks ago that quid pro quo isn't impeachable. 

The goal posts move every time more is revealed. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-20-2019, 02:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Only if Biden is as corrupt as Trump.

Then he will be held to the same standards.

But how about a game where you try to refute what has been said and shown and proven about Trump instead?

Well, first of all, Biden didn’t settle for $25 million out of court to help repay the students he ripped off with Trump University so Biden would be hard pressed to be as corrupt as Trump. Second, it doesn’t matter if Biden isn’t corrupt any more than it didn’t matter Obama wasn’t born in Kenya. Republicans will still push that agenda if they want. Just like Trump pushes lies about . . . well, everyone.

It’s because Republicans who are more than willing to ignore Trump’s abuse of power by blatantly breaking the law are also more than willing to turn Burmisa into another Benghazi-like circus.

This situation just makes you wonder what Trump would have to do for Republicans to ever acknowledge he ever did anything wrong?

[Belsnickel]

(11-20-2019, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not doubting the truth of anything the whistle blower said. But just as it's very important that we know Trump's motive for asking Ukraine to investigate; I think it's important that the courts know the whistle blower's motivation for shinning the light on it. Was his/her motivation simply upholding the rule of law or did he/she have a personal gain. Do you not think that's something the courts should know?  

I think it is irrelevant. Motives for witnesses are only needed for credibility. If credibility has been determined, as you agree it has been, then nothing more is needed. Motivation of a suspect/accused person is important to determine intent and whether or not it was criminal/corrupt. The whistle blower's motive has no bearing on this and comparing the two is a false equivalency.

[BmorePat87]

(11-20-2019, 12:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: He deleted the tweet.

However nothing is ever gone on the internet.

He kept this gem up

The arrogance of Sondland!! His message is clear: "How dare Trump direct foreign policy. It's OUR job." This is the Deep State at its worst. They really do think they run the government. WEED THEM OUT. #DemsGotNothing

— Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) November 20, 2019

 


Who knew that a guy who gave $1m to Trump and was appointed by Trump was the "deep state"

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not doubting the truth of anything the whistle blower said. But just as it's very important that we know Trump's motive for asking Ukraine to investigate; I think it's important that the courts know the whistle blower's motivation for shinning the light on it. Was his/her motivation simply upholding the rule of law or did he/she have a personal gain. Do you not think that's something the courts should know?  

Because they thought it should be investigated.  It was looked at and it is being investigated because others agreed.

You don't need to know anymore than that.

EVEN IF THEY HAD SOMETHING PERSONAL TO GAIN...it was found to be a legitimate complaint and moved forward down the line.

That guy who wanted a couple years off his sentence for telling the authorities that his neighbor loves dealing drugs had something personal to gain but I bet officials looked into it anyway.

Any defense for what Trump did? I mean OTHER than we need to know why someone said it should be looked into?

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 03:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He kept this gem up

The arrogance of Sondland!! His message is clear: "How dare Trump direct foreign policy. It's OUR job." This is the Deep State at its worst. They really do think they run the government. WEED THEM OUT. #DemsGotNothing

— Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) November 20, 2019

 


Who knew that a guy who gave $1m to Trump and was appointed by Trump was the "deep state"

Well Trump barely knows the guy....

[GMDino]

Republicans want to normalize presidents leveraging foreign governments into becoming opposition research organs for their campaigns

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 20, 2019

 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-20-2019, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not doubting the truth of anything the whistle blower said. But just as it's very important that we know Trump's motive for asking Ukraine to investigate; I think it's important that the courts know the whistle blower's motivation for shinning the light on it. Was his/her motivation simply upholding the rule of law or did he/she have a personal gain. Do you not think that's something the courts should know?  

That’s a lie. You’ve been casting doubt from the beginning. That’s why you along with other Republicans keep pushing this narrative of “secondhand” information and characterizing it as “suspension and innuendo” meant as suspicion and innuendo. You’re still casting doubt. Today. Deliberately. While dishonestly pretending you’re not. It’s annoying.

At this point, the motivation of the whistleblower along with their identity is a moot point because individuals with first hand knowledge like LTC Vindman listened to the call, had the same concerns, and thus filed their own complaint about Trump’s immoral and illegal activity. Yet, you make no mention of his motivation. I wonder why? Actually, I don’t wonder because LTC Vindman stated his motivation involved national security. Withholding military aid approved by Congress does involve national security especially when the president does it for personal political gain during the next election. You can’t use that to cast doubt about Vindman’s motivation the same way you continue to deliberately cast doubt regarding the whistleblower’s report using . . . suspicion and innuendo.

TLDR: the entire point of the mentioning whistleblower’s identity and motivation is to cast doubt. Claiming otherwise is simply dishonest.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-20-2019, 02:05 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Correct. You have not met the bar. But here it is again, should you ever get serious about the free speech issue.

"...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."

Show you can navigate such questions beyond bald counter-assertion. . .followed by assessments of the people who don't agree.  

I'll be happy to respond to this, as soon as you make the connection between the individual right to free speech and a free press.  Also, what criteria decides what constitutes a "freer" press?  The mental gymnastics you're displaying trying to excuse people being arrested for having an opinion in much of Europe but they are actually "freer" than us poor folks in the US is amusing to watch.  Also, kindly shove your condescension.  Thank you. 

[*michaelsean*]

(11-20-2019, 01:52 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Today:

.@POTUS is now standing on South Lawn reading - from handwritten notes - quotes from Sondland testimony: pic.twitter.com/9LqG1k4Bpt

— Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) November 20, 2019

First of all, Twain must have been under 50.

Fill me in on context here because I just looked up what Trump was talking about, and this is what Sondland said Trump told him?

And then Jordan asked him why it wasn't in his opening statement and he said it didn't fit? I gotta admit, this sound a little fishy.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/nov-20-impeachment-hearings-live-updates-n1086301/ncrd1087206#liveBlogHeader

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 04:39 PM)michaelsean Wrote: First of all, Twain must have been under 50.

Fill me in on context here because I just looked up what Trump was talking about, and this is what Sondland said Trump told him?

And then Jordan asked him why it wasn't in his opening statement and he said it didn't fit?  I gotta admit, this sound a little fishy.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/live-blog/nov-20-impeachment-hearings-live-updates-n1086301/ncrd1087206#liveBlogHeader

Trump held a copter conference and needed notes to remember what he told Sondland.

That he said that is common knowledge and didn't need to be in the opening statement, according to Sondland.

[GMDino]

While the GOP is concerned about the "possibility of an appearance of conflict of interest" by Hunter Biden....

Using an impeachment inquiry about your father's corruption as an opportunity to grift is a power #MAGA move pic.twitter.com/aZrMIAO2Yd

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 20, 2019

 

[GMDino]

Now that Republicans have decided to try to destroy Sondland, a reminder of 5 hours ago:

Nunes: “Ambassador Sondland, you are here today to be smeared. But you’ll make it through it and I appreciate your service to this country and I am sorry that you’ve had to go through this.” pic.twitter.com/kBBGxGAGNm

— Jesse Lee (@JesseCharlesLee) November 20, 2019

 

[GMDino]

The conversation where Trump said he wanted nothing, no quid pro quo, came the same day as The White House first heard about the whistleblower. Two days later, the military aid was finally released.

— Morten Øverbye (@morten) November 20, 2019