Impeachment Hearings

[Dill]

(11-22-2019, 02:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: QPQ are normal and not inherently unethical.  Stating that is factual.  Pointing that out is not exculpatory.  You want to mince and parse words, fine, but it doesn't detract from what I actually posted, that the issue was attaching QPQ for political gain.  Several people completely understood my point, I'm sorry you did not.  That doesn't mean I didn't make the point I made.

Indeed, several people agreed with you that QPQ was no big deal.

And you re-posted them as evidence that people "completely understood" your point, a point you did not explicitly restate.

But Breech and Dino agree with that too. And probably Benton. Is there anyone who doesn't?  So what was the point you did not explicitly restate?  Where did all those partisan misreaders with comprehension problems come from?  Are there perhaps TWO POINTS in play?

indeed there is a second point. The misreaders think you DID NOT plainly say THIS (quoting Breech), in some form or other--"Trump’s solicitation of a favor from a foreign government to aid him during the next election is both immoral and illegal . . . ."

To which you responded: "Yes, if the favor in return was for political gain then it was wrong, exactly as I stated in my original post."

So here is your original post #251: "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 said Trump asked for assistance to hurt a political rival with no word as to its immorality/illegality, then immediately thereafter said "putting conditions on receiving our aid (i.e., what you just said Trump did) is rather normal."

Again NO ONE DISAGREES QPQ is normal, but how does describing Trump's QPQ without qualification affirm that it was not normal? Especially following that with the claim QPQ is not "inherently unethical"? This does appear, as Breech says, to frame an inappropriate request as an appropriate one.

So far as I can tell, the people who "completely understood" you only agreed with the point that QPQ was normal. Bels post added that it was abuse of power in Trump's case--as a RIDER to your QPQ post. Something that needed to be said. 

Their posts DO NOT back your claim they understood you to exactly state that Trump's solicitation of foreign aid was both immoral and illegal.

I gave you an out--the original was ambiguous--but you rejected that. You continue to claim the fault is in the comprehension of all who could not see what you still say is explicitly there, and praising the "reasonableness" of those who agreed only that QPQ was normal, but have so far not affirmed that you did indeed condemn Trump in your original post.  Asked to quote the very words in your post which "exactly" state that Trump's actions were wrong or illegal or whatever, you cannot, you can only rinse and repeat "three people understood me completely," or maybe not even rinse.  

[Dill]

(11-22-2019, 05:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll go on record right now and state that smarmy faux intellectual nitpickers have never helped anything, ever.  But don't break your arm patting yourself on the back either. :andy:

Will you go on record as someone ready to move beyond name calling to more rational, evidence based political argument?

[GMDino]

(11-22-2019, 06:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Will you go on record as someone ready to move beyond name calling to more rational, evidence based political argument?

Trump supporters are in a real quandary.  They know Trump did something wrong but he won't admit it so they can't say it.

Some have *tried* and said it was "wrong" but "not bad enough for impeachment".  Others have tried to temper it was he merely did something everyone else always does only in a way that wasn't right.  lol.

Too many words must confuse them.  Heck, Trump's own words admitting he wanted an investigation into the the Bidens in exchange for the meeting and funding is confusing them.  

But when the other side has nothing they resort to name calling and emotional responses.

And, as a last note before the weekend shutdown:  I asked early this morning what would cross that line from wrong to impeachable and nary a word about it.  Too busy throwing out insults (slurs? That used to be a popular word around here) and trying to rewrite old posts to avoid simply admitting a lack of clarity or *gasp* being wrong.

[Dill]

(11-22-2019, 06:16 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So at current count, seems like four people understood your point and about four people didn't and I don't think the misunderstanding is due to partisanship or knee jerk reactions.  

The point that three people understood seems to be the one that everyone understands--namely that QPQ is normal in politics.

The four partisan misreaders, those who failed to get SSF's "explicit" point, are those who noted, IN ADDITION, that he does not explicitly condemn Trump's QPQ in his original post, while going on about how normal QPQ  was.

Outside of SSF himself, no one so far has maintained that SSF did explicitly condemn Trump's QPQ in #251, including the "reasonable" posters he claims agree with him.

This was an easy fix: either quote the explicit condemnation of Trump in the original, or admit the original was ambiguous and add the needed clarification--as you just did for him.    

[Dill]

(11-22-2019, 03:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't get the confusion here. A "quid pro quo" IS normal. No one would like to give out aid no questions asked. Aid is given out for a certain purpose that often also serves the interest of the donor. Like Ukraine buying defense weapons to stop Russian expansion. Or say middle american countries increasing opportunities with the aid given, hence reducing migration. Or whatever reason.
So, when Ukraine gets aid, the US (and Europe, that unlike Trump's claims gives waay more than the US) expects that money to be used to oppose Russia. For our benefit as well as theirs. That is a kind of quid pro quo that is normal, and conditions connected to handing out that aid are also normal.

It is wrong to use aid for personal/political gains though. Like what Trump did, that was wrong and not within the realms of a "normal", logical and understandable situation one might also call a quid pro quo, where a donor nation wants to see the money spent in a way that serves their national interest.

What is wrong about that statement?

Er, no one is disputing any of those points.

Breech was responding to SSF's continued claim that he explicitly condemned Trump's QPQ in post #251:

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.

[hollodero]

(11-22-2019, 07:19 PM)Dill Wrote: Er, no one is disputing any of those points.

Breech was responding to SSF's continued claim that he explicitly condemned Trump's QPQ in post #251:

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.

Oh, OK then.

[Dill]

(11-22-2019, 09:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: DJT has worse moral failings (he robbed from his own charity for example) AND used his personal lawyer to run a separate foreign policy that only benefited him and his campaign...not the US.  Yet we still get equivocation that that is not enough for impeachment.  Or at least not enough to solidly make Republicans want to impeach.

So what would?

Had he ACTUALLY said the words quid pro quo?  To me this is the same as saying we can only find someone guilty of attempted robbery if they are on tape saying they are going to attempt to rob a bank even if we catch them at the bank on after he's told the teller "this is a  stick up" note even though she didn't she his gun yet.

What is your moral/legal/policy bending line that you would impeach Trump or ANY POTUS?

How much evidence (and from who) do you need?  In this case everyone who has testified to what Trump and Rudy were doing has been attacked as "never trumpers" and "deep state".  No background is good enough, not even the guy who gave DJT one million dollars for his inauguration.

If we had five years ago done a blind experiment, selecting a proper sample of Americans and then

1. presented them with the unethical and legal activities now attributed to Trump, and

2. asked if these activities, either in toto or some separately (the Ukraine QPQ; obstruction of justice and falsification of records to obstruct) rose to the level of impeachment,

Then I think we' find that the pre-Trump threshold was crossed long ago.  The vast majority would say that actions like his would warrant impeachment.  Probably 99% if you matched every respondent to a case from the other party--e.g., have Republicans imagine that it is Hillary with a private fixer, leaving Kurdish allies to die, and helping Putin by holding up aid to Ukraine.

Some thoughts on what's different about the Trump case:

1. The quality of the Evangelical support. Because Trump is part of God's plan, that separates him from the usual accountability. Checks and balances are just Satan's way of holding off the millenium.  There are only a few million hardcore Evangelicals, but they bleed into larger denominations like the Southern Baptists (20 million+) and the further millions who attend non-denominational mega churches in Texas, Oklahoma and other southern states. They don't much care if Trump has disrupted US Syria policy or destroyed US credibility by trashing the Iran Deal and the TPP, or failed to adequately staff the State Dept, or obstructed the Mueller inquiry or robbed his own charity. They "win" if he moves the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

2. Fox and affiliates. The construction of a Hilliary/Obama Democratic party dominated by elites who think they are better than YOU and always get away with corruption and wrongdoing, melded with the decades long image of a LIBERAL MEDIA which disinforms the masses and scorns flyover America and is in the tank with the Dems. Because Trump is the first politician to really have the Fox audience's back, these libs will do anything to take down Trump and have been working outside the law to bring him down since before the election. So it is hardly reasonable to allow people like that to use the law to take him down and put themselves back in power.

This is why I think that even when Trump has for long egregiously violated ethical norms, common decency, and the law for years, that doesn't matter.  Trump supporters aren't going to let the nefarious Dems destroy their man, and with him, America.

[Belsnickel]

U.S. District Judge has ruled that McGahn must testify: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782705643/federal-judge-rules-that-mcgahn-must-testify-delivering-blow-to-white-house

This will be appealed, of course, but this is a bit of a blow to the White House. Apparently the decision is 118 pages, which seems a little excessive but is likely intended to make it a bit more ironclad.

[hollodero]

(11-25-2019, 08:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: U.S. District Judge has ruled that McGahn must testify: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782705643/federal-judge-rules-that-mcgahn-must-testify-delivering-blow-to-white-house

This will be appealed, of course, but this is a bit of a blow to the White House. Apparently the decision is 118 pages, which seems a little excessive but is likely intended to make it a bit more ironclad.

It seems odd that this is even up for a judge to decide, and that it actually took so long to get that decision. This was filed in August. My question now is: Trump can now appeal - but how often can he do that? Until it's a supreme court matter? And how many steps are those, and will each appeal again last 3+ months?

I ask because I want to see some more hearings with the really good stuff in it. But regarding the speed this thing takes, I doubt that will happen.


Btw. if Bolton really holds out just so he can sell a book with all the juicy details in it somewhen later, the whole country should be mad at him.

[GMDino]

I posted this over in the Tucker thread but it belongs here too.  Now we have the Right Wing Noise Machine flat out saying they choose Russia over the Ukraine because "why should I care".

Tucker Carlson: Why do I care what’s going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And I’m serious, why do I care? And why shouldn’t I root for Russia, which I am pic.twitter.com/9vJvSKNEge

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) November 26, 2019

 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-25-2019, 09:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: It seems odd that this is even up for a judge to decide, and that it actually took so long to get that decision. This was filed in August. My question now is: Trump can now appeal - but how often can he do that? Until it's a supreme court matter? And how many steps are those, and will each appeal again last 3+ months?

I ask because I want to see some more hearings with the really good stuff in it. But regarding the speed this thing takes, I doubt that will happen.


Btw. if Bolton really holds out just so he can sell a book with all the juicy details in it somewhen later, the whole country should be mad at him.

. . . it would make him a Republican.

[Dill]

(11-26-2019, 01:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: I posted this over in the Tucker thread but it belongs here too.  Now we have the Right Wing Noise Machine flat out saying they choose Russia over the Ukraine because "why should I care".

[GMDino]

Again, everyone is lying...except Trump.

EVERYONE is lying, according to Trump...except Trump.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-26/trump-denies-sending-rudy-giuliani-to-ukraine-for-biden-probe

Quote:Trump Denies Sending Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine for Biden Probe

 President discusses Giuliani in interview with Bill O’Reilly
•  
  Giuliani has said he conducted Ukraine investigation for Trump
  

Donald Trump denied directing Rudy Giuliani to go to Ukraine to look for dirt on his political rivals, in an interview with former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly.



“No, I didn’t direct him, but he is a warrior, he is a warrior,” Trump told O’Reilly in an interview streamed on the internet on Tuesday.

3 months for $105 $6. Cancel anytime.

[GMDino]

"Sure I took money in a bag from the bank teller after telling her I needed it as a "favor" in order to leave.  But really what it was about was I was concerned over the way the bank was investing everyone ELSE'S money.  It was all there in the note that read "Give me all your money..."  Just read the note!!  And I left the money on the bank sidewalk outside the building when I heard on the police scanner that people wanted to know why I took it.  So the bank got their money back and I left as I was supposed to do.  Where's the crime?!?!"

~ Donald J Trump (Probably)

President Trump knew about the whistle-blower complaint over his Ukraine dealings when he released military aid, people briefed on the matter said https://t.co/YzcAAXeEWQ

— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) November 27, 2019

 

[hollodero]

(11-26-2019, 09:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-26/trump-denies-sending-rudy-giuliani-to-ukraine-for-biden-probe

Ugh. There seems a bus coming for Rudy to be thrown under. Good for him he has insurance.

[*bfine32*]

The unfortunate dance partner speaks on this issue:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/don-t-trust-anyone-ukrainian-082248476.html

Quote:During the interview in his office in Kyiv, the comedian-turned-president denied, as he has done in the past, that he and Trump ever discussed a decision to withhold American aid to Ukraine for nearly two months in the context of a quid pro quo involving political favors, which are now at the center of the impeachment inquiry in Congress.

But he also pushed back on Trump’s recent claims about corruption in Ukraine, and questioned the fairness of Trump’s decision to freeze American aid. “If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us,” he said. “I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo.”

[GMDino]

(12-02-2019, 06:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The unfortunate dance partner speaks on this issue:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/don-t-trust-anyone-ukrainian-082248476.html

I agree with him.  It can't be a quid pro quo...so Trump shouldn't have asked for it.

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 06:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: During the interview in his office in Kyiv, the comedian-turned-president denied, as he has done in the past, that he and Trump ever discussed a decision to withhold American aid to Ukraine for nearly two months in the context of a quid pro quo involving political favors, which are now at the center of the impeachment inquiry in Congress.

First off, clever. He probably indeed never spoke to Trump about it, the phone call aside that obviously (I don't know how, but apparently) can be interpreted as non-extortionist. Aside from that, yep Trump sent Giuliani, and Giuliani talked with someone in Ukraine about it.
But Zelenski knew. Everybody knew that this was the condition, that's what the witnesses testified. I specifically recall Holmes saying it, Taylor said something on that behalf, also others carefully, but still admitted to the scheme, it was clear as day. And the Ukrainians were told as well. 
Who was it again that testified how he called upon Ukrainians to stop politically motivated prosecutions and got the snarky reply "Oh, you mean stuff like you want us to do with Biden?"

Everyone knew.

But of course Zelenski cannot go out there and say so. That would be a mistake, and in his case literally possibly a lethal one. Because even if he did, Trump might survive, and his certain wrath is a deadly danger for his country. Zelenski's denial proves nothing except that he's not dumb.

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2019, 07:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: First off, clever. He probably indeed never spoke to Trump about it, the phone call aside that obviously (I don't know how, but apparently) can be interpreted as non-extortionist. Aside from that, yep Trump sent Giuliani, and Giuliani talked with someone in Ukraine about it.
But Zelenski knew. Everybody knew that this was the condition, that's what the witnesses testified. I specifically recall Holmes saying it, Taylor said something on that behalf, also others carefully, but still admitted to the scheme, it was clear as day. And the Ukrainians were told as well. 
Who was it again that testified how he called upon Ukrainians to stop politically motivated prosecutions and got the snarky reply "Oh, you mean stuff like you want us to do with Biden?"

Everyone knew.

But of course Zelenski cannot go out there and say so. That would be a mistake, and in his case literally possibly a lethal one. Because even if he did, Trump might survive, and his certain wrath is a deadly danger for his country. Zelenski's denial proves nothing except that he's not dumb.

So in you opinion Zelenski is lying? 

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 07:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So in you opinion Zelenski is lying? 

I'd assume so, yes.

(Or in the particular case you quoted, he is mincing words... but in general, yes he's lying, because he has no other option)