Impeachment Hearings

[*bfine32*]

Watching this for the first time. Why does Schiff's chair have to be so much bigger than everyone else's?

[*bfine32*]

I've got a question for the Poli-Sci experts in the forum. Let's say the House votes to impeach.. what's next? I realize it goes to the Senate, but what do they do? Do they get to call witnesses or do they just use the results of the House's investigation?

[*michaelsean*]

(11-20-2019, 08:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've got a question for the Poli-Sci experts in the forum. Let's say the House votes to impeach.. what's next? I realize it goes to the Senate, but what do they do? Do they get to call witnesses or do they just use the results of the House's investigation?

It’s like a trial with the Chief Justice and judge.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-20-2019, 05:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.  

Okay, so you’ve moved on from if the whistleblower is telling the truth to why would the whistleblower do something as, dare I say, inconceivable as tell the truth? Why would a person tell the truth? That’s a head scratcher. A real humdinger as some folks would say.

I’m gonna preface my next statement with my dad was a convicted felon, but even trailer trash like me was taught honesty is the best policy. Granted he couldn’t afford a lawyer like Michael Cohen, Bill Barr, or Rudy Giuliani. But, still if you could gaze past the criminal activity and see into his heart you’d surely find a heart o’ (stolen) gold.

But, I’m sure that can’t be it. Nah, must be some nefarious, Deep State, Never Trumper, crybaby conspiracy.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-20-2019, 08:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: A lot of you guys missed SSF’s point completely. It seems you thought he was defending Trump and went into instant shutdown.

I think most everyone gets it. Aid to other countries is, at times, linked to conditions they must fulfill in order to receive the money. For example, “Hey, Iran, we’re going to sell you arms in exchange for hostages.” Another might be, “Hey, Contras, we’re going to give you this money in order to carry out terrorist attacks against the Nicaraguan government and sell the CIA cheaper cocaine.” This time Congress was like, “Yo, Ukraine, this money is to help you fight the Russian backed rebels in your country.”

All of those conditions were in support of US foreign policy.

Now when Trump does his Vito Corleone impression, “One day, and this day may never come, but Imma gonna need youse guys to do me a favor, and it better come in the form of a public announcement pretty freakin’ soon, like in a New York minute soon. You know what Imma talkinabout? Fuggedaboutit. But, Imma gonna need youse guys to announce youse guys are investigating Biden for corruption like it’s youse guys’ idea, not mine.”

How does Trump’s favor support US foreign policy? It doesn’t. Even as F’ed as the Iran Contra scandal was, it actually supported stated US foreign policy of securing the release of hostages, but just in almost the worst way imaginable.

[GMDino]

(11-20-2019, 08:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: A lot of you guys missed SSF’s point completely. It seems you thought he was defending Trump and went into instant shutdown.

Every single response to SSF was that he was right about "requirements" but that the "favor" Trump asked for went into a different territory.

So I guess it depends on if his point was to equate what Trump asked for in order to give Ukraine their meeting (and funds) or if his point was that in the past there have been requirements.  

It's true there have been requirements.  It's wrong that Trumps requirement is the same.

[*bfine32*]

(11-20-2019, 09:51 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Okay, so you’ve moved on from if the whistleblower is telling the truth to why would the whistleblower do something as, dare I say, inconceivable as tell the truth?  Why would a person tell the truth? That’s a head scratcher. A real humdinger as some folks would say.

I’m gonna preface my next statement with my dad was a convicted felon, but even trailer trash like me was taught honesty is the best policy. Granted he couldn’t afford a lawyer like Michael Cohen, Bill Barr, or Rudy Giuliani. But, still if you could gaze past the criminal activity and see into his heart you’d surely find a heart o’ (stolen) gold.

But, I’m sure that can’t be it. Nah, must be some nefarious, Deep State, Never Trumper, crybaby conspiracy.

I'm sure you feel you have a point; but I could care less about phrases such as deep state, never Trumper. But yes, I think it's important for the courts to know the motivation behind someone sharing National Security secrets and what else they may know.

I get you and the Left disagree, but it doesn't change my stance. I don't need to know, you don't need to know, and no one public facing need to know, but I think the courts do. But admittedly; I've always been against the process of immunity. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-20-2019, 05:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.  

Seems I may have jumped the gun on this and got swept up in the organisms from the Left. I appears after further questioning he stated that was just his presumption.   

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-20-2019, 10:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm sure you feel you have a point; but I could care less about phrases such as deep state, never Trumper. But yes, I think it's important for the courts to know the motivation behind someone sharing National Security secrets and what else they may know.

I get you and the Left disagree, but it doesn't change my stance. I don't need to know, you don't need to know, and no one public facing need to know, but I think the courts do. But admittedly; I've always been against the process of immunity. 

Well, let me explain how this got started. The whistleblower made an anonymous complaint to the IG of the intelligence community, Trump appointee Michael Atkinson who found the complaint credible and urgent. Atkinson is required by law to report credible and urgent complaints to Congress so he sent the report to the acting Director of National Intelligence, Trump appointee Joseph Maguire.

Maguire refused to forward Atkinson’s report to Congress as required by law. At which point the House intelligence Committee asked for the report and, of course, the White House refused to comply.

But, yes, let’s question why a whistleblower would tell the truth in an anonymous complaint to the intelligence community Inspector General which had to be declassified for you to know what was in it. And whose content has been corroborated by multiple witnesses with first hand knowledge.

Instead of questioning why Maguire and the White House didn’t comply with the law let’s question if a whistleblower is even a whistleblower. Then let’s question if they’re telling the truth. Then let’s question why they told the truth. Then let’s insinuate how they reported the complaint to their IG is unlawful even though they followed the process to a T.

https://www.dni.gov/ICIG-Whistleblower/

(11-20-2019, 05:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who knows, maybe I'm just a little slower than the rest

Maybe you are slower. Maybe you’re just pretending. But, at least you gave it that good ol’ College (of Anthropology) try.

[Dill]

(11-21-2019, 12:13 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Well, let me explain how this got started. The whistleblower made an anonymous complaint to the IG of the intelligence community, Trump appointee Michael Atkinson who found the complaint credible and urgent. Atkinson is required by law to report credible and urgent complaints to Congress so he sent the report to the acting Director of National Intelligence, Trump appointee Joseph Maguire.

Maguire refused to forward Atkinson’s report to the House Intelligence Committee as required by law. At which point the House intelligence Committee asked for the report and, of course, the White House refused to comply.

But, yes, let’s question why a whistleblower blower would tell the truth in an anonymous complaint to the intelligence community Inspector General which had to be declassified for you to know what was in it. And whose content has been corroborated by multiple witnesses with first hand knowledge.

Instead of questioning why Maguire and the White House didn’t comply with the law let’s question if a whistleblower is even a whistleblower. Then let’s question if they’re telling the truth. Then let’s question why they told the truth. Then let’s insinuate how they reported the complaint to their IG is unlawful even though they followed the process to a T.

https://www.dni.gov/ICIG-Whistleblower/

You’re probably right about being slower than the rest.

Why not take it a step even further and designate the whistelblower a "leaker".  Then we can prosecute him.

This should work, now that so many cannot distinguish between checks-and-balances and "presidential harassment."

That's why "motivation" has become so important. People can no longer tell the difference between right and wrong unless they know the party of the accused.

[*bfine32*]

(11-21-2019, 12:13 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Well, let me explain how this got started. The whistleblower made an anonymous complaint to the IG of the intelligence community, Trump appointee Michael Atkinson who found the complaint credible and urgent. Atkinson is required by law to report credible and urgent complaints to Congress so he sent the report to the acting Director of National Intelligence, Trump appointee Joseph Maguire.

Maguire refused to forward Atkinson’s report to the House Intelligence Committee as required by law. At which point the House intelligence Committee asked for the report and, of course, the White House refused to comply.

But, yes, let’s question why a whistleblower blower would tell the truth in an anonymous complaint to the intelligence community Inspector General which had to be declassified for you to know what was in it. And whose content has been corroborated by multiple witnesses with first hand knowledge.

Instead of questioning why Maguire and the White House didn’t comply with the law let’s question if a whistleblower is even a whistleblower. Then let’s question if they’re telling the truth. Then let’s question why they told the truth. Then let’s insinuate how they reported the complaint to their IG is unlawful even though they followed the process to a T.

https://www.dni.gov/ICIG-Whistleblower/

You’re probably right about being slower than the rest.

Those words are indeed impressive, but if you don't think the courts should know the identity of whistleblower you could have saved many of them. Of course the public thinks the White House should be questioned on their motives and procedures; they have a sense of entitlement; but for some that "right to know" stops at a point.

I have never seen so many experts assembled in such a small forum. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-20-2019, 06:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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.

This was my exact point.

(11-20-2019, 07:48 PM)Benton Wrote: 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.

I think you missed my point entirely.  Actually, you misunderstood it would be a better way to put it.

(11-20-2019, 07:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Thank you for, one, actually reading my post, and two, giving a reasoned response.

(11-20-2019, 08:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: A lot of you guys missed SSF’s point completely. It seems you thought he was defending Trump and went into instant shutdown.

It would seem so.  Lots of that going on around here the past three years.

(11-20-2019, 10:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I think most everyone gets it. Aid to other countries is, at times, linked to conditions they must fulfill in order to receive the money. For example, “Hey, Iran, we’re going to sell you arms in exchange for hostages.”  Another might be, “Hey, Contras, we’re going to give you this money in order to carry out terrorist attacks against the Nicaraguan government and sell the CIA cheaper cocaine.” This time Congress was like, “Yo, Ukraine, this money is to help you fight the Russian backed rebels in your country.”

All of those conditions were in support of US foreign policy.

Now when Trump does his Vito Corleone impression, “One day, and this day may never come, but Imma gonna need youse guys to do me a favor, and it better come in the form of a public announcement pretty freakin’ soon, like in a New York minute soon. You know what Imma talkinabout? Fuggedaboutit. But, Imma gonna need youse guys to announce youse guys are investigating Biden for corruption like it’s youse guys’ idea, not mine.”

How does Trump’s favor support US foreign policy? It doesn’t. Even as F’ed as the Iran Contra scandal was, it actually supported stated US foreign policy of securing the release of hostages, but just in almost the worst way imaginable.

I wish everyone did get it, but many clearly don't.  Your point is valid, but it didn't address my initial point.

(11-20-2019, 10:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Every single response to SSF was that he was right about "requirements" but that the "favor" Trump asked for went into a different territory.

Except for yours that literally said;

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

Maybe read before responding in the future?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-21-2019, 12:35 AM)Dill Wrote: Why not take it a step even further and designate the whistelblower a "leaker".  Then we can prosecute him.

This should work, now that so many cannot distinguish between checks-and-balances and "presidential harassment."

That's why "motivation" has become so important. People can no longer tell the difference between right and wrong unless they know the party of the accused.

Labels like deep state, never trumper, or leaker don’t matter to bfine. What’s really important the underlying innuendo which leads to the label. He’s not going to call them a leaker, too high class. But, he sure will insinuate it while claiming he never said it.

If someone is retired Army they should know how Army IG complaints work and the reason whistleblower complaints should be filed is because it is the individual’s duty to report wrongdoing when they are aware of it. Intelligence community IG whistleblower complaints happen for the same reason. This complaint was investigated by the Intel IG. But, instead of acknowledging that “folks” choose to obfuscate it. Watching the same ol’ song and dance is very tiresome.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-21-2019, 12:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Those words are indeed impressive, but if you don't think the courts should know the identity of whistleblower you could have saved many of them. Of course the public thinks the White House should be questioned on their motives and procedures; they have a sense of entitlement; but for some that "right to know" stops at a point.

I have never seen so many experts assembled in such a small forum. 

I gave you the link to the whistleblower protections at the DNI website. If you don’t like the laws as currently written I suggest you petition Mitch McConnell to change them.

Furthermore, at this point in the investigation the whistleblower’s identity is a moot point because their “hearsay” can be completely dismissed due to the testimony of others with firsthand knowledge.

[Dill]

(11-20-2019, 04:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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. 

Since my point about free press was a response to your claim that Europe does not "agree" with free speech, that seems the better starting point. It's not clear at all what a statement like yours could mean. Not just because Europe is a collection of countries with a range of differing free speech laws, but also because you have singled out one criterion, the one most favorable to personal attack and hate speech, and made that THE criterion for whether free speech exists at all. "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."

This kind of argument has little descriptive/classificatory value, making it impossible to distinguish between "Europe" (or the countries thereof) and North Korea. Nevermind that your definition assumes that "direct harm" has some kind of fixed, transnational sense, and that it makes government the sole arbiter of speech freedom.

The introduction of another aspect of general freedom of expression--freedom of press--addresses your oversimplification by adding another, complicating measure. Our own courts and legal scholars have difficulty separating press freedom from free speech. So far as I can tell, daylight between these only begins to appear when organizations like Freedom House, Reporters without Borders, and IREX, sort out degrees of press freedom. Very hard to argue that a high degree of free speech can coexist with a low degree of press freedom, though that should be possible if they are indeed "not the same thing at all."

There are several metrics for researching freedom of press, which involve assessing degree of independence from government and corporate power, pluralism of views (and related to this, the tendency to self censor), transparency in news organizations AND the legislative means of regulating them. Reporters without Borders factors in a category called "abuses," tracking threats, violence and imprisonment. Sweden and Austria rate "good" by their measure, while the U.S. rates "satisfactory."

PS Your post has four sentences; only two address the issue. Do you understand that professing amusement at my "mental gymnastics" (while so far unable to substantively address them) is at least pretended condescension?  Why not skip the sharing, cap the projection, and keep focused on the issues and arguments? Show that you can meet the bar.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-21-2019, 12:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This was my exact point.


I think you missed my point entirely.  Actually, you misunderstood it would be a better way to put it.


Thank you for, one, actually reading my post, and two, giving a reasoned response.


It would seem so.  Lots of that going on around here the past three years.


I wish everyone did get it, but many clearly don't.  Your point is valid, but it didn't address my initial point.


Except for yours that literally said;




Maybe read before responding in the future?

No, I don’t believe that was your exact point. Because your point was “quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a ‘high crime and misdemeanor’ is simply not true.”

To which I agree, however Trump’s solicitation of a favor from a foreign government to aid him during the next election is both immoral and illegal and as such does rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Whether it is extortion; yeah, probably.

You’re attempting to frame an inappropriate request the same as an appropriate request. Then claiming all requests aren’t inherently inappropriate. Which is correct, but just because all the requests aren’t inappropriate doesn’t mean the inappropriate requests aren’t inappropriate.

It seems you’re trying to reverse engineer an inappropriate request into an appropriate request because not all requests are inappropriate.

[Dill]

(11-21-2019, 01:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:
If someone is retired Army they should know how Army IG complaints work and the reason whistleblower complaints should be filed is because it is the individual’s duty to report wrongdoing when they are aware of it. Intelligence community IG whistleblower complaints happen for the same reason. This complaint was investigated by the Intel IG. But, instead of acknowledging that “folks” choose to obfuscate it. Watching the same ol’ song and dance is very tiresome.

I know. I don't understand that. Like Command can never be the problem--even when you are a civilian with a Commander-in-Chief who understands nothing of honor and is abusing the power of his office, counting on people to neglect their duty when it protects him.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2019, 01:51 AM)Dill Wrote: Since my point about free press was a response to your claim that Europe does not "agree" with free speech, that seems the better starting point. It's not clear at all what a statement like yours could mean. Not just because Europe is a collection of countries with a range of differing free speech laws, but also because you have singled out one criterion, the one most favorable to personal attack and hate speech, and made that THE criterion for whether free speech exists at all. "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."

This kind of argument has little descriptive/classificatory value, making it impossible to distinguish between "Europe" (or the countries thereof) and North Korea. Nevermind that your definition assumes that "direct harm" has some kind of fixed, transnational sense, and that it makes government the sole arbiter of speech freedom.

The introduction of another aspect of general freedom of expression--freedom of press--addresses your oversimplification by adding another, complicating measure. Our own courts and legal scholars have difficulty separating press freedom from free speech. So far as I can tell, daylight between these only begins to appear when organizations like Freedom House, Reporters without Border, and IREX, sort out degrees of press freedom. Very hard to argue that a high degree of free speech can coexist with a low degree of press freedom, though that should be possible if they are indeed "not the same thing at all."

There are several metrics for researching freedom of press, which involve assessing degree of independence from government and corporate power, pluralism of views (and related to this, the tendency to self censor), transparency in news organizations AND the legislative means of regulating them. Reporters without Borders factors in a category called "abuses," tracking threats, violence and imprisonment. Sweden and Austria rate "good" by their measure, while the U.S. rates "satisfactory."

PS Your post has four sentences; only two address the issue. Do you understand that professing amusement at my "mental gymnastics" (while so far unable to substantively address them) is at least pretended condescension?  Why not skip the sharing, cap the projection, and keep focused on the issues and arguments? Show that you can meet the bar.

This is, quite honestly, a lot of pontificating bullshit.  It's not complicated, if the government can enforce criminal sanctions against you for voicing your opinion, while you're not directly advocating violence (directly is a key word here) then you reside in a country that does not value free speech, no matter what the "free press index" indicates.  It is interesting that you used Hungary as an example of "Europe" considering they are constantly under attack for not adhering to "values consistent with the EU".

Pro tip, stop trying to change the subject and stick to the undeniable fact that people are arrested and prosecuted in the EU for voicing their, non-violent, opinion.  All the rest of your word salad screed is a distraction.  Alternatively, you could tell us all about Al Quds day and what that means, another topic you enjoy dodging on the regular.    

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2019, 02:05 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No, I don’t believe that was your exact point.

It was.

Quote:Because your point was “quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a ‘high crime and misdemeanor’ is simply not true.”

Correct.

Quote:To which I agree,

Glad to hear it.

Quote:however Trump’s solicitation of a favor from a foreign government to aid him during the next election is both immoral and illegal and as such does rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Whether it is extortion; yeah, probably.

Yes, if the favor in return was for political gain then it was wrong, exactly as I stated in my original post.

Quote:You’re attempting to frame an inappropriate request the same as an appropriate request.

No, I'm not.  Not even remotely.  If you disagree simply quote my post in which I do so and underline said part.

Quote:Then claiming all requests aren’t inherently inappropriate. Which is correct, but just because all the requests aren’t inappropriate doesn’t mean the inappropriate requests aren’t inappropriate.

I agree.  As I never stated otherwise, and in fact did exactly the opposite, I'm confused as to why you're confused.

Quote:It seems you’re trying to reverse engineer an inappropriate request into an appropriate request because not all requests are inappropriate.

Nope.  My friend, you have, quite simply, completely misinterpreted my point.  If you go back and review it I think (hope) you'll find exactly that.

[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.

(11-20-2019, 07:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

(11-20-2019, 08:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: A lot of you guys missed SSF’s point completely. It seems you thought he was defending Trump and went into instant shutdown.

These three gentlemen completely understood my post.  It appears many of the rest of you did not.  We appear to live in a world of knee jerk partisan reaction.



I don't like this world.