Impeachment Hearings

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 01:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Are you fully aware that you answered a different question than the one Hollo asked?


Both sides do it?  I can certainly assign "better job" to one side--the side demanding witnesses, documents, facts.

If the majority of the public is unable to do that then the republic is really in trouble.

I will consider him Not Guilty of the charges. Did I give an acceptable answer this time?

Of course you can assign better job. Look who's truly not addressing the point made. Hollo said "good job" and I disagreed.

[hollodero]

(01-17-2020, 12:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, I will take the irrational stance of accepting the court's decision; regardless of the verdict . I'm fully aware that many will not.

I think it's fair to question this particular court's impartiality and fairness.

One wouldn't just accept Weinstein being exonerated by a jury full of Weinstein business associates. Yeah indeed, I do not accept that particular jury's verdict on grounds of its blatantly obvious bias.

-- sure, maybe it depends on what "accepting" means. It's within your laws if they do exonerate him and that should not be questioned. But I strongly question an obligation to "accept" their verdict in the sense of agreeing with it.
E.g. by saying Trump did nothing wrong, as confirmed by a republican senate.
(Bill Clinton was not removed, but still, he clearly did something wrong and he clearly is not free of guilt as well.)

(01-17-2020, 12:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's why I posed the question. I assumed the House did an investigation and made a conclusion; it is the Senate's job to consider that evidence and form a verdict.

I'd say it's their job to determine whether Trump's deeds indeed warrant removal from office. I wouldn't see a rational reason to instead say it's their job to only evaluate what was known some weeks back and not regard any additional information.

(01-17-2020, 12:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you don't mind the precedence it sets so be it. Personally I don't think either side should be used as the model for how an impeachment works; personally I cannot assign "good job" to anyone in this circus.

Ah, I'd say no side did a perfect job; but there is quite a qualitative difference in the two sides' behaviour. For example, one side lies, deflects and spouts Russian propaganda stories.
Specifically for delaying the process - that was, to me, a good job, for it gave Lev Parnas opportunity to speak. Additionally there's some other quite relevant information that came out.

(01-17-2020, 12:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I know McConnel indicated this earlier but he appears to have backed off slightly. Anyone who doesn't review the House's findings (especially after taking an oath) should be ashamed and voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.

Well, saying one is not impartial and then "appearing to have backed off slightly" is really too little.
Lindsey Graham flatout said he won't even consider any evidence and did not back off ever so slightly.

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 01:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think it's fair to question this particular court's impartiality and fairness.

One wouldn't just accept Weinstein being exonerated by a jury full of Weinstein business associates. Yeah indeed, I do not accept that particular jury's verdict on grounds of its blatantly obvious bias.

-- sure, maybe it depends on what "accepting" means. It's within your laws if they do exonerate him and that should not be questioned. But I strongly question an obligation to "accept" their verdict in the sense of agreeing with it.
E.g. by saying Trump did nothing wrong, as confirmed by a republican senate.
(Bill Clinton was not removed, but still, he clearly did something wrong and he clearly is not free of guilt as well.)



I'd say it's their job to determine whether Trump's deeds indeed warrant removal from office. I wouldn't see a rational reason to instead say it's their job to only evaluate what was known some weeks back and not regard any additional information.



Ah, I'd say no side did a perfect job; but there is quite a qualitative difference in the two sides' behaviour. For example, one side lies, deflects and spouts Russian propaganda stories.
Specifically for delaying the process - that was, to me, a good job, for it gave Lev Parnas opportunity to speak. Additionally there's some other quite relevant information that came out.



Well, saying one is not impartial and then "appearing to have backed off slightly" is really too little.
Lindsey Graham flatout said he won't even consider any evidence and did not back off ever so slightly.

It might also be fair the hear what the defense presents before asserting "I've already made up my mind"

Applaud the Dem's behavior if you want. I'm sure you enjoyed Pelosci commemorating this "sad and somber day" of "impeached forever" by signing the articles with 32 pens and the sad and somber walk of the house officials delivering the articles to the Senate. Neither side gives 2 shits about the truth. It's politics and they're all caught up in it.

Is Graham's position any more atrocious than a Dem stating they would impeach before any evidence was presented  or folks saying guilty before the trial?

[masonbengals fan]

No impartiality to be seen here.

[Dill]

(01-17-2020, 01:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I will consider him Not Guilty of the charges. Did I give an acceptable answer this time?

Of course you can assign better job. Look who's truly not addressing the point made. Hollo said "good job" and I disagreed.

LOL  What standards have you simply dismissed in your last three posts--including at least one you've frequently demanded others respect? 

'nuther keeper.  

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 02:00 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL  What standards have you simply dismissed in your last three posts--including at least one you've frequently demanded others respect? 

'nuther keeper.  

Innocent until proven guilty?

As to the subject at hand:

When the House impeachment process started I had my doubts of the validity of the process; however, once that one dude stated that Trump's concern was not about finding corruption, but about making the investigation public I immediately said; "This needs to be investigated". So the House findings altered my stance.

Now it is quite possible that some evidence presented by the defense may sway me back the other way; however, if they try and find him to be guilty of this act I will applaud his removal from office.

Not unlike Kavanaugh; I tend to wait for all the findings.

[hollodero]

(01-17-2020, 01:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It might also be fair the hear what the defense presents before asserting "I've already made up my mind"

Sure thing.
My problem is, I saw the case presented in the house and it seems compelling. That can change in theory, just as of now I have not even seen an attempt of a defense. Maybe there is one, and maybe it contains valid and truthful points, I will see.
Forgive me for having doubts though. The first attempt of a "defense" in the house was embarrassing. And I have trouble seeing an angle how this Ukraine extortion story that was corroborated many times can change. But there sure is space enough to try.

(01-17-2020, 01:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Applaud the Dem's behavior if you want. I'm sure you enjoyed Pelosci commemorating this "sad and somber day" of "impeached forever" by signing the articles with 32 pens and the sad and somber walk of the house officials delivering the articles to the Senate.

Yeah I didn't talk about any of that, so I don't know why you throw that at me. I specifically talked about something else, twice.
But since you'd rather talk about those things: I deem the things you complain about here pretty irrelevant.

(01-17-2020, 01:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Neither side gives 2 shits about the truth. It's politics and they're all caught up in it.

Maybe so. It just happens that one side pretty much tells the truth and the other side pretty much tells lies. Any attempt of a defense is free to point out when the Dems did not tell the truth in some substantial matter. You're free to do so as well.
Just, don't answer with slamming "somber walks" please.

(01-17-2020, 01:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is Graham's position any more atrocious than a Dem stating they would impeach before any evidence was presented  or folks saying guilty before the trial?

Well, yes. It is more atrocious.
Those Dems you mention at least have facts they base their opinion on. Graham has nothing of that sort.
But sure, said Dems should have kept their mouths shut as well.

[GMDino]

Bunch of snowflakes...

https://www.thoughtco.com/why-presidents-use-so-many-pens-3368115

Quote:Updated August 29, 2019
Presidents often use several pens to sign a bill into law, a tradition dates back nearly a century and continues to this day. President Donald Trump, for example, used several bill-signing pens on his first day in office when he put his signature on his first executive order, instructing federal agencies to uphold the Affordable Care Act while also working to "minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens" on American citizens and companies.

Trump used so many pens and handed them out as souvenirs on Jan. 20, 2017, the day he was sworn into office, that he joked to staff: “I think we’re going to need some more pens, by the way ... The government is getting stingy, right?” Oddly enough, before Trump, President Barack Obama used nearly two dozen pens to sign that same legislation into law in 2010.

That's a lot of pens.

Unlike his predecessor, Trump uses gold-plated pens from A.T. Cross Co. based in Rhode Island. The company's suggested retail price for the pens is $115 apiece.

The practice of using several pens isn't universal, however. Obama's predecessor, President George W. Bush, never used more than one pen to sign a bill into law.

Tradition 
The first president to use more than one pen to sign a bill into law was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who served in the White House from March 1933 until April 1945.

According to Bradley H. Patterson's To Serve the President: Continuity and Innovation in the White House Staff, the president used several pens to sign bills of "high public interest" during signing ceremonies in the Oval Office. Most presidents now use multiple pens to sign those bills into law.

So what did the president do with all those pens? He gave them away, most of the time.

Presidents "gave the pens as commemorative souvenirs to members of Congress or other dignitaries who had been active in getting the legislation passed. Each pen was presented in a special box bearing the presidential seal and the name of the president who did the signing," Patterson writes.

Valuable Souvenirs
Jim Kratsas of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum told National Public Radio in 2010 that presidents have been using multiple pens so they can distribute them to lawmakers and others who were instrumental in shepherding the legislation through Congress at least since President Harry Truman was in office.

As Time magazine put it: "The more pens a President uses, the more thank-you gifts he can offer to those who helped create that piece of history."

The pens used by presidents to sign important pieces of legislation are considered valuable and have shown up for sale in some cases. One pen showed up for sale on the Internet for $500.

Examples
Most modern presidents use more than one pen to sign landmark legislation into law. 

• President Bill Clinton used four pens to sign the Line-Item Veto. He gave the pens to former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush, according to an account of the signing by Time magazine.
• Obama used 22 pens to sign health care reform legislation into law in March of 2010. He used a different pen for each letter or half letter of his name. "This is gonna take a little while," Obama said.
• According to the Christian Science Monitor, it took Obama 1 minute and 35 seconds to sign the bill using those 22 pens.
• President Lyndon Johnson used 72 pens when he signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 02:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure thing.
My problem is, I saw the case presented in the house and it seems compelling. That can change in theory, just as of now I have not even seen an attempt of a defense. Maybe there is one, and maybe it contains valid and truthful points, I will see.
Forgive me for having doubts though. The first attempt of a "defense" in the house was embarrassing. And I have trouble seeing an angle how this Ukraine extortion story that was corroborated many times can change. But there sure is space enough to try.



Yeah I didn't talk about any of that, so I don't know why you throw that at me. I specifically talked about something else, twice.
But since you'd rather talk about those things: I deem the things you complain about here pretty irrelevant.



Maybe so. It just happens that one side pretty much tells the truth and the other side pretty much tells lies. Any attempt of a defense is free to point out when the Dems did not tell the truth in some substantial matter. You're free to do so as well.
Just, don't answer with slamming "somber walks" please.



Well, yes. It is more atrocious.
Those Dems you mention at least have facts they base their opinion on. Graham has nothing of that sort.
But sure, said Dems should have kept their mouths shut as well.

The Defense has present no evidence/ witnesses yet so that's most likely why you haven't seen anything yet.

You didn't speak of those things; however, you did speak directly of the "behavior" of both sides and how one was superior to the other, so I thought it might be relevant to bring up their behavior.

The Dems I speak of had 0 facts before a big chunk started crying "Impeach".

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-17-2020, 02:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: Bunch of snowflakes...

https://www.thoughtco.com/why-presidents-use-so-many-pens-3368115

Quote:Unlike his predecessor, Trump uses gold-plated pens from A.T. Cross Co. based in Rhode Island. The company's suggested retail price for the pens is $115 apiece.

Interesting how the writer makes it seem like gold plated and $115 a piece are way more than "his predecessor"... but the Townsend pen Obama used is listed at $190.50/piece.

[/url]
[url=https://www.giftpens.com/blogs/news/what-pen-have-recent-american-presidents-used]https://www.giftpens.com/blogs/news/what-pen-have-recent-american-presidents-used

Quote:Most recently President Obama used the Townsend Black with Silver Trim Rollerball used for signing official documents.

https://www.giftpens.com/products/gp-120-cross-townsend-black-lacquer-rollingball-pen?variant=20350111547451




(Worth noting, I don't give a damn that they signed with a bunch of pens. I just thought that was a loaded sentence dripping with bias. I actually didn't even know Presidents all had the same pen supplier. Never really occurred to me to think about.)

[jj22]

The President has hired Epsteins defense team to defend him..

Go figure given their tight relationship and how the Trump Admin allowed him to be murdered to cover for their connection.

[hollodero]

(01-17-2020, 02:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The Defense has present no evidence/ witnesses yet so that's most likely why you haven't seen anything yet.

I'd say that's not entirely accurate. Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison were republican witnesses. Now maybe they were not "defense witnesses" in the technical sense you'd seek (I don't know), but they were witneses called by the de facto defense.
Also, half the time in the house hearings was given to republicans that, I'd guess, tried their best defense. It just wasn't a very good one.
Oh, and house republicans also wrote a 123 page long defense. Which was full of nonsensical arguments. There was a defense already.

(01-17-2020, 02:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You didn't speak of those things; however, you did speak directly of the "behavior" of both sides and how one was superior to the other, so I thought it might be relevant to bring up their behavior.

OK I spoke "behaviour" and I stand by my assertion that one side behaved waaay more outrageous than the other. That's not to say one side was perfect.

But yeah, the side that wanted to forcibly and publicly out a whistleblower, accused Schiff of pursuing nude pictures of Trump, propagated a number of unfounded conspiracies and Russian propaganda lies [Biden protecting his son, Crowdstrike and servers, Lisa Page stuff, deep state stuff...], purposedly interrupted out of term to complain to FOX about being shut down later, complained about leaving the public in the dark and boring the public in a show trial within the same statement, stormed a closed door hearing [etc.] wins the prize.
Not to mention Nunes having vivid contact to Lev Parnas without disclosing that not so minor issue beforehand. I mean, Jeez, things like that are unmatched by the other side, no matter how obnoxiously solemn their walk to the senate was.

(01-17-2020, 02:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The Dems I speak of had 0 facts before a big chunk started crying "Impeach".

I dislike this argument so awfully much, for it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Whatever Al Green did or AOC said before that Ukraine thing came to light really does not matter at all.

[GMDino]

Trump's defense team has been announced.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ken-starr-dershowitz-join-trumps-impeachment-defense-team

I'll just leave this here:

"I think Ken Starr is a lunatic. I really think that Ken Starr is a disaster." https://t.co/PLbBB4VYij

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 17, 2020

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 02:52 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'd say that's not entirely accurate. Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison were republican witnesses. Now maybe they were not "defense witnesses" in the technical sense you'd seek (I don't know), but they were witneses called by the de facto defense.
Also, half the time in the house hearings was given to republicans that, I'd guess, tried their best defense. It just wasn't a very good one.
Oh, and house republicans also wrote a 123 page long defense. Which was full of nonsensical arguments. There was a defense already.



OK I spoke "behaviour" and I stand by my assertion that one side behaved waaay more outrageous than the other. That's not to say one side was perfect.

But yeah, the side that wanted to forcibly and publicly out a whistleblower, accused Schiff of pursuing nude pictures of Trump, propagated a number of unfounded conspiracies and Russian propaganda lies [Biden protecting his son, Crowdstrike and servers, Lisa Page stuff, deep state stuff...], purposedly interrupted out of term to complain to FOX about being shut down later, complained about leaving the public in the dark and boring the public in a show trial within the same statement, stormed a closed door hearing [etc.] wins the prize.
Not to mention Nunes having vivid contact to Lev Parnas without disclosing that not so minor issue beforehand. I mean, Jeez, things like that are unmatched by the other side, no matter how obnoxiously solemn their walk to the senate was.



I dislike this argument so awfully much, for it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Whatever Al Green did or AOC said before that Ukraine thing came to light really does not matter at all.

I do suppose The House selecting and allowing the GOP to have 2 of the numerous witnesses they requested to be part of the 9 witnesses that testified is some, but I'll still wait for the actual defense before I give my verdict or question the Defense.

As to who's behavior is worse: I have applauded nothing the GOP has done, their behavior is shameful; yet you have applauded the Dems and come up with the: "Not as bad" defense to justify your stance

Okey Doke. 

[Dill]

(01-17-2020, 01:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It might also be fair the hear what the defense presents before asserting "I've already made up my mind"

Applaud the Dem's behavior if you want. I'm sure you enjoyed Pelosci commemorating this "sad and somber day" of "impeached forever" by signing the articles with 32 pens and the sad and somber walk of the house officials delivering the articles to the Senate. Neither side gives 2 shits about the truth. It's politics and they're all caught up in it.

Is Graham's position any more atrocious than a Dem stating they would impeach before any evidence was presented  or folks saying guilty before the trial?

Jeezzus. Yes, quite a bit more atrocious. 

It is not unusual for a prosecutor investigating a case to publicly claim that s/he believes a defendant is guilty.  No one accuses such a prosecutor of "bias" simply for bringing forward an indictment supported by facts and witnesses.  Though it would be VERY BAD if a prosecutor refused to hear witnesses and subpoena material documents to insure a judgment of guilt or innocence.

Different story if a JUROR goes into a courtroom claiming his/her mind is made up. In this "trial" Graham is a JUROR who says he does not want to look at evidence or hear witnesses. That is UNUSUAL, as in very bad.

Further, if the FACTS/LAW appropriately indicate guilt, it is IMMATERIAL whether a prosecutor thought the defendant "guilty from day one," and it is UTTERLY IMMATERIAL that Pelosi initiates impeachment protocol with solemnity. What desperation to spin that as some profound point against the process, and those doing their duty.

Which brings us to your claim that "neither side gives 2 shits about the truth." That is just another equivocation, dismissing the FACT that one side is placing the factual record and the law front and center, while the other is doing its best to block witnesses, attack the character of the prosecutors, and repeat immaterial points like "they were going to impeach Trump from day one." That's how people shift attention away from the factual record when that record --THE FACTS--condemn their guy.

And it works. It is the inability of millions of Americans to see any real difference here--to distinguish a legal case from ad hominem--that put a lawless president in power and now keeps him there.

[hollodero]

(01-17-2020, 04:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do suppose The House selecting and allowing the GOP to have 2 of the numerous witnesses they requested to be part of the 9 witnesses that testified is some, but I'll still wait for the actual defense before I give my verdict or question the Defense.

Fair enough. I just disagreed that there was no defense yet.

Btw. the best defense I heard yet came from Mulvaney. I say that without irony. "We did it, get over it."

(01-17-2020, 04:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to who's behavior is worse: I have applauded nothing the GOP has done, their behavior is shameful; yet you have applauded the Dems and come up with the: "Not as bad" defense to justify your stance

Well, that's because they imho are not as bad, and I explained why this is my opinion. With that I do not justify a stance, I just state one.

Initially, I just 'applauded' Dems for the hold up specifically. Why you made such an overall thing out of that, I do not know. And though I do respect your acknowledging shameful GOP behaviour, I can not in good conscience agree with your take that the Dems behaved equally shameful. Which it seems you're trying to establish.

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 04:36 PM)hollodero Wrote: Fair enough. I just disagreed that there was no defense yet.

Btw. the best defense I heard yet came from Mulvaney. I say that without irony. "We did it, get over it."



Well, that's because they imho are not as bad, and I explained why this is my opinion. With that I do not justify a stance, I just state one.

Initially, I just 'applauded' Dems for the hold up specifically. Why you made such an overall thing out of that, I do not know. And though I do respect your acknowledging shameful GOP behaviour, I can not in good conscience agree with your take that the Dems behaved equally shameful. Which it seems you're trying to establish.

Fair enough, perhaps your ho will change once the ball's in the GOP's home court and damning the process is all they have, just like it's all the GOP had with the ball in the Dems home court.

I do not applaud the holding of the articles along with a great many other things and I definitely think the speaker's decision to hold them is something not worthy of applause.  

[Dill]

(01-17-2020, 04:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do suppose The House selecting and allowing the GOP to have 2 of the numerous witnesses they requested to be part of the 9 witnesses that testified is some, but I'll still wait for the actual defense before I give my verdict or question the Defense.

As to who's behavior is worse: I have applauded nothing the GOP has done, their behavior is shameful; yet you have applauded the Dems and come up with the: "Not as bad" defense to justify your stance

Saying that both sides don't give 2 shits about the truth is a kind of verdict, isn't it?

You've claimed some bit of evidence presented by the House convinced you that Trump should be investigated. You understand that the other side has been continuously working to help the president block that bit and even more evidence, right?

"Not as bad" is truly better than treating both sides as equivalent.  Why do you just HAVE to do that?

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 04:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Saying that both sides don't give 2 shits about the truth is a kind of verdict, isn't it?

You've claimed some bit of evidence presented by the House convinced you that Trump should be investigated. You understand that the other side has been continuously working to help the president block that bit and even more evidence, right?

"Not as bad" is truly better than treating both sides as equivalent.  Why do you just HAVE to do that?

Nah, it's more of an opinion, one steeped in evidence. Is it your opinion that one side is only worried about the truth in this "somber and sad" affair? I wonder why the Dems didn't allow the GOP the witnesses they requested in this desire to find the truth?

Yes, I know how partisan politics work

Perhaps because I don't follow the "2 wrongs make a right" fallacy. 

[fredtoast]

(01-17-2020, 04:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I wonder why the Dems didn't allow the GOP the witnesses they requested in this desire to find the truth?

The Republicans have not been denied any witnesses that that would help them find the truth about what Trump did.