Impeachment Hearings

[*bfine32*]

(11-20-2019, 03:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Alright. We don't need to know the motivation of the accuser. I think we agree that the accuser's information is credible.

[GMDino]

"We appreciate your candor, but let's be clear about what it took to get it out of you" -- damn, Maloney *is not* messing around ? pic.twitter.com/gMaxMH5xZ9

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 20, 2019

[*michaelsean*]

13 pages and still not an intelligent comment by Republicans or a stupid one by Dems.

[*Nately120*]

Just a generic side note, but I was under the impression that a big reason Trump was so popular was because people were convinced that a guy who wasn't afraid to break the rules, assert his dominance, and act with selfish disregard for others was exactly what this country needed to repair itself after "niceguy wimp" Obama spent 8 years apologizing and bowing to people.

Fast forward and there is evidence that Trump broke the rules and is a selfish me-first kinda guy and the same people who love his ruthless disregard for ethics simply refuse to believe it is so.

[CJD]

(11-20-2019, 05:30 PM)GMDino Wrote:

"We appreciate your candor, but let's be clear about what it took to get it out of you" -- damn, Maloney *is not* messing around ? pic.twitter.com/gMaxMH5xZ9

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 20, 2019

This audience is full of Never Trumpers today. 

Partisan hacks. 

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 05:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 13 pages and still not an intelligent comment by Republicans or a stupid one by Dems.

That should tell you how this has gone.

The Reps have not defended DJT and attacked Biden and demanded to know who the whistleblower is.  The Democrats have put together a train of evidence that leads to Trump demanding a public announcement of an investigation into Biden or no meeting and then withheld the approved funding.  The day the WH learned of the whistleblower Trump yelled "no quid pro quo" into a phone and then when the new report on the funding came out they released the money two days later.

Attempted robbery is still a crime.

Attempted extortion is still a high crime and misdemeanor.

But I encourage you or anyone to listen and read and then report your own findings afterwards.  Plenty of Trump apologists on this board who have had ample time to show Democrat mistakes or Republican strong points.

[*bfine32*]

(11-20-2019, 04:21 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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.

Perhaps because up until today I considered it all to be hearsay. But today we had an Ambassador testify that he spoke directly with Trump and received these demands.

Who knows, maybe I'm just a little slower than the rest and didn't consider information of quid-pro-quo before to day to be direct source.  Didn't LTC Vindman state he never has spoken directly with Trump?

I think the GOP's desire to make the whistleblower's identity public is a charade and is nothing more than a stunt; it's damn sure not to pursue the truth in this matter. I'm simply mentioned my assertion that the identity should be known to the courts.  

[GMDino]

Cops storm the bank... Robber tosses his gun and throws his ski mask in a trash can and yells “I do not want to steal Money From This Bank!!!” - @GOP response.. The man is Innocent! #ImpeachmentHearings #Sondland

— Hal Sparks (@HalSparks) November 20, 2019

[*michaelsean*]

(11-20-2019, 04:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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.

That sounds rather stupid.  So everything in his 23 page opening statement was new info?  

[CJD]

After today's testimony, I think there are two conclusions possible for informed viewers/voters/politicians:

1. Trump orchestrated the Quid Pro Quo regarding the announcement of the investigations meant for his own personal gain in exchange for the White House Meeting and, perhaps, the aid (though there is no explicit declaration of the link, it is implicit in virtually every testimony thus far) and should be impeached.

2. Trump orchestrated the Quid Pro Quo regarding the announcement of the investigations meant for his own personal gain in exchange for the White House Meeting and, perhaps, the aid (though there is no explicit declaration of the link, it is implicit in virtually every testimony thus far), but this does not really constitute impeachment. It's better to let the people decide in 2020 if Trump is worthy of the Presidency.

I can't imagine anyone in good faith can reach any other conclusion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-20-2019, 05:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Attempted extortion is still a high crime and misdemeanor.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but having requirements on our aid is not extortion.  The issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, is the assertion that Trump asked for assistance in investigating a rival with the intent of hurting them politically.  Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal.  The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.

[CJD]

(11-20-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but having requirements on our aid is not extortion.  The issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, is the assertion that Trump asked for assistance in investigating a rival with the intent of hurting them politically.  Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal.  The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.

you are correct.

It's why I don't like that the Democrats leaned on the term Quid Pro Quo for so long.

They really should have emphasized that the impeachment was not because Trump did a QPQ. It was that he did a QPQ that was not in the interest of the American people but rather him and his political campaign in 2020.

The second they did not emphasize that and the Right pointed out that Biden used a (legal) QPQ to get the prosecutor fired was the point at which the Impeachment was destined to fail.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but having requirements on our aid is not extortion.  The issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, is the assertion that Trump asked for assistance in investigating a rival with the intent of hurting them politically.  Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal.  The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.

Ok.  You're wrong.

A requirement that includes the public announcement of an investigation into a political opponent is.

He withheld the meeting.

He withheld the congressionally approved funding.

Then it was covered up.

Then, when they heard about the whistleblower he changed his tune.

Then he claimed it was about corruption.

It wasn't about corruption in 2017 and 2018...when there were not "requirements" on the funds with the old regime in the Ukraine.

It wasn't corruption in 2019...it was Biden running for office.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 05:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: you are correct.

It's why I don't like that the Democrats leaned on the term Quid Pro Quo for so long.

They really should have emphasized that the impeachment was not because Trump did a QPQ. It was that he did a QPQ that was not in the interest of the American people but rather him and his political campaign in 2020.

The second they did not emphasize that and the Right pointed out that Biden used a (legal) QPQ to get the prosecutor fired was the point at which the Impeachment was destined to fail.

It was destined to never get a vote from a Republican if Trump and his staff admitted to it.  (They did.)

Nonetheless the small matter of one being legal and bipartisan and Trump's being in his own personal/political interest is the difference.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-20-2019, 05:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: you are correct.

It's why I don't like that the Democrats leaned on the term Quid Pro Quo for so long.

They really should have emphasized that the impeachment was not because Trump did a QPQ. It was that he did a QPQ that was not in the interest of the American people but rather him and his political campaign in 2020.

The second they did not emphasize that and the Right pointed out that Biden used a (legal) QPQ to get the prosecutor fired was the point at which the Impeachment was destined to fail.

Thank you for the cogent, reasonable response.  We will see the opposite in just a moment.  I agree with you as well, they definitely went about this the wrong way.

(11-20-2019, 05:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ok.  You're wrong.

Ok, I'm assuming you'll tell me how I'm wrong then?

Quote:A requirement that includes the public announcement of an investigation into a political opponent is.

He withheld the meeting.

He withheld the congressionally approved funding.

Then it was covered up.

Then, when they heard about the whistleblower he changed his tune.

Then he claimed it was about corruption.

It wasn't about corruption in 2017 and 2018...when there were not "requirements" on the funds with the old regime in the Ukraine.

It wasn't corruption in 2019...it was Biden running for office.

I assumed incorrectly.  Not one part of this rambling response actually addresses the points and questions I posted.  Thanks for trying I guess?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-20-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but having requirements on our aid is not extortion.  The issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, is the assertion that Trump asked for assistance in investigating a rival with the intent of hurting them politically.  Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal.  The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.

We set conditions like we expect military aid to be used for military purposes. Withholding that military aid until the president personally benefits politically during the next presidential election by announcing corruption investigations into his political rival by a foreign government isn’t a condition that ensures the aid is used as intended.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 06:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you for the cogent, reasonable response.  We will see the opposite in just a moment.  I agree with you as well, they definitely went about this the wrong way.



Ok, I'm assuming you'll tell me how I'm wrong then?


I assumed incorrectly.  Not one part of this rambling response actually addresses the points and questions I posted.  Thanks for trying I guess?

lol...


"requirement" was the word you used.

What that "requirement" was and it becomes impeachable was explained.  

I'll never stop trying to educate....some people just won't learn.

[Benton]

(11-20-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but having requirements on our aid is not extortion.  The issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, is the assertion that Trump asked for assistance in investigating a rival with the intent of hurting them politically.  Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal.  The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.

No kidding. Foreign dictators for years have been using public dollars to investigate rivals and manipulate the public.

 

Whether it's illegal or not, that's above my pay grade. But utilizing tax dollars to have foreign powers figuratively take out political opponents should be something we consider bad to a democracy, and end it whenever possible. If nothing comes out of this impeachment, that's a message for future presidents that this is acceptable, and I'm not comfortable with that. We're giving one guy carte blanche to  use public dollars to have foreign powers do his dirty work.

[Belsnickel]

(11-20-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but having requirements on our aid is not extortion.  The issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, is the assertion that Trump asked for assistance in investigating a rival with the intent of hurting them politically.  Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal.  The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.

Right. In fact, it is even a mandate in the law that POTUS ensure a lack of corruption before the funds are distributed in the case of the aid. The issue is that there is a whole lot to the idea that Trump wasn't actually concerned about corruption in Ukraine, but rather certain specific things that would be of benefit to him, politically. That is what moves it into the abuse of power category.

[*michaelsean*]

A lot of you guys missed SSF’s point completely. It seems you thought he was defending Trump and went into instant shutdown.