Impeachment Hearings

[Dill]

(01-22-2020, 06:01 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Had the Dems ran a fair proceeding in the congressional hearings, there's a chance we wouldn't be talking about this in the senate. I find it very odd to hear the left complain about the right being corrupt.

I know Harley. That is the problem.

One side is trying very hard to get the truth, via documents and witnesses,

and the other side is doing their damnedest to prevent that from happening,

and a segment of the voting public just reads that as corruption on "both sides."  

However the Dems ran the proceedings in the House, I'd say there was zero chance the Republicans behaved any differently than they are now.

 

[BmorePat87]

The Republican Senators who all voted along party lines last night to prevent admitting evidence and subpoenaing witnesses with direct knowledge feigned outrage today when Nadler accused them of engaging in a cover up.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

The Democrats had their chance to call witnesses during the hearings in the House which they monumentally failed to do. That’s when you call witnesses — in the House — not when the proceedings reach the Senate. All this hand wringing about a “fair trial” comes from crocodile tears from the left. Let’s vote and get this thing behind us.

[HarleyDog]

(01-22-2020, 06:05 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: What was unfair about the house proceedings?  

Honest question

From what I witnessed, republicans were prohibited to call witnesses. Any attempts made to question witnesses provided by dems was interrupted, cut short and mostly unallowed. The dems were trying to race through this process because they want an impeachment hanging over Trump before the upcoming election. Let's face it, the dems have publically been speaking impeachment before the president even took office. This is nothing but a party who has refused to accept the results of the election and the american people. Where is the whistleblower anyway that caused all this? There has been nothing fair about any of this. No facts of wrong doing and since everything else has failed, their hanging on an abuse of power? 

Let's not forget these hearing only had dem support and zero republican support. There has been no collusion proven, there has been nothing proven. Hell, even a bought and paid for dossier by the dems which defrauded the court to get a FISA warrant which eventually blew up in their faces didn't work. So much corruption and waste of money that could have supported so many great causes instead of revenge for losing an election.

I know it was an honest question and I apologize for throwing some of my own frustration into it. It's very frustrating to continue to hear 3 years of attacking a president instead of working with him. Our whole political system is failing our nation miserably, and I feel most of this is driven by biased media refusing to tell facts. I think the american people are getting pretty tired of the BS too.

[hollodero]

(01-22-2020, 08:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: From what I witnessed, republicans were prohibited to call witnesses.

This is not true.
Two of the witnesses were called by Republicans.

They were prohibited to hear people like Hunter Biden or Nellie Ohr. Because they had nothing to contribute. Obviously. Hearing Hunter would just as obviously been a circus and a distraction.

(01-22-2020, 08:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Any attempts made to question witnesses provided by dems was interrupted, cut short and mostly unallowed.

This actually is mind-boggingly untrue. They were given equal time and allowed to say pretty much anything. The sole exception were attempt to expose the whistleblower.
The Reps additionally talked out of turn - again and again. OK, they were called to order for that. And then they used that to complain about it. And that's that. Just a disingenuous, cheap talking point.

(01-22-2020, 08:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: The dems were trying to race through this process because they want an impeachment hanging over Trump before the upcoming election.

Maybe so. But still, Trump did the deed. He illegally held up military aid to get an investigation into Biden announced. He did that thing. This is supported by many, many facts. How can one blame Democrats for Trump doing that thing?

(01-22-2020, 08:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Let's face it, the dems have publically been speaking impeachment before the president even took office.

The important ones haven't.

(01-22-2020, 08:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: This is nothing but a party who has refused to accept the results of the election and the american people. Where is the whistleblower anyway that caused all this?

The whistleblower is protected under the whistleblower act (or whatever act). And after all, he has nothing to add that is not already confirmed. Why would anyone need to know who it was then?

(01-22-2020, 08:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Hell, even a bought and paid for dossier by the dems which defrauded the court to get a FISA warrant which eventually blew up in their faces didn't work.

Yeah, that also did not happen. Nothing of that actually happened. This is mostly a lie.

(01-22-2020, 08:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: and I feel most of this is driven by biased media refusing to tell facts.

I think it's driven by people who ignore the facts.
In all honesty, people like you.

[GMDino]

(01-22-2020, 08:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: From what I witnessed, republicans were prohibited to call witnesses. Any attempts made to question witnesses provided by dems was interrupted, cut short and mostly unallowed. The dems were trying to race through this process because they want an impeachment hanging over Trump before the upcoming election. Let's face it, the dems have publically been speaking impeachment before the president even took office. This is nothing but a party who has refused to accept the results of the election and the american people. Where is the whistleblower anyway that caused all this? There has been nothing fair about any of this. No facts of wrong doing and since everything else has failed, their hanging on an abuse of power? 

Let's not forget these hearing only had dem support and zero republican support. There has been no collusion proven, there has been nothing proven. Hell, even a bought and paid for dossier by the dems which defrauded the court to get a FISA warrant which eventually blew up in their faces didn't work. So much corruption and waste of money that could have supported so many great causes instead of revenge for losing an election.

I know it was an honest question and I apologize for throwing some of my own frustration into it. It's very frustrating to continue to hear 3 years of attacking a president instead of working with him. Our whole political system is failing our nation miserably, and I feel most of this is driven by biased media refusing to tell facts. I think the american people are getting pretty tired of the BS too.

First we found Lindsey Graham's burner account on here and now Jim Jordan's.  

[HarleyDog]

(01-22-2020, 08:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: This is not true.
Two of the witnesses were called by Republicans.

They were prohibited to hear people like Hunter Biden or Nellie Ohr. Because they had nothing to contribute. Obviously. Hearing Hunter would just as obviously been a circus and a distraction.



This actually is mind-boggingly untrue. They were given equal time and allowed to say pretty much anything. The sole exception were attempt to expose the whistleblower.
The Reps additionally talked out of turn - again and again. OK, they were called to order for that. And then they used that to complain about it. And that's that. Just a disingenuous, cheap talking point.



Maybe so. But still, Trump did the deed. He illegally held up military aid to get an investigation into Biden announced. He did that thing. This is supported by many, many facts. How can one blame Democrats for Trump doing that thing?



The important ones haven't.



The whistleblower is protected under the whistleblower act (or whatever act). And after all, he has nothing to add that is not already confirmed. Why would anyone need to know who it was then?



Yeah, that also did not happen. Nothing of that actually happened. This is mostly a lie.



I think it's driven by people who ignore the facts.
In all honesty, people like you.

Didn't mean to upset you. Where did you get your facts that you say I ignore? Did you watch the hearings and see what I seen?

[HarleyDog]

(01-22-2020, 09:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: First we found Lindsey Graham's burner account on here and now Jim Jordan's.  

[hollodero]

(01-22-2020, 09:30 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Didn't mean to upset you.

You didn't.

(01-22-2020, 09:30 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Where did you get your facts that you say I ignore? Did you watch the hearings and see what I seen?

This seems like a fair question.
In which hearings have you seen "Any attempts made to question witnesses provided by dems was interrupted, cut short and mostly unallowed"? Because that just did not happen.

And so on, through all the points I just made.

What hearings have you seen?

[Dill]

(01-22-2020, 07:54 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: The Democrats had their chance to call witnesses during the hearings in the House which they monumentally failed to do.  That’s when you call witnesses — in the House — not when the proceedings reach the Senate.  All this hand wringing about a “fair trial” comes from crocodile tears from the left.  Let’s vote and get this thing behind us.

Actually, the senate is where the TRIAL phase of impeachment actually takes place. That's why EVERY IMPEACHMENT which has come before the Senate in the history of the Republic (at least 19) has had witnesses.

The House is supposed to collect evidence and depose witnesses FOR evidence. It does not try people there. It functions on the analogy to a grand jury, which seeks to determine if there is enough evidence to indict someone. It is unlike a grand jury in that defendants normally do not have the power to block witnesses and withhold documents. When a president blocks documents and witness testimony wholesale, that is Nixon-grade obstruction and cover up. 

When the Senate ratifies that obstruction, they have shirked their constitutional responsibility and placed the president--and their party--above the law.

If enough voters cheer them on to "get this thing behind us," then the republic is broken.

[BmorePat87]

(01-22-2020, 09:30 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Didn't mean to upset you. Where did you get your facts that you say I ignore? Did you watch the hearings and see what I seen?

Here's an article about two witnesses requested by Republicans and how one confirmed quid pro quo:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/impeachment-hearings-even-the-gops-witnesses-are-hurting-trump


You can pull up the hearings on youtube to see that the claim that people were interrupted is false. In reality, Jim Jordan and Doug Collins spent most of their time not asking questions but rather just ranting, often times about debunked or patently false claims. 

Here's an article on how the GOP used their time with witness Fiona Hill (a lifelong Republican who worked for Bolton in the administration)

She was chided for her comments by three Republican congressmen, Mike Turner, John Ratcliffe and Brad Wenstrup, who used their question time to criticize her, fellow witness David Holmes and the impeachment inquiry without asking them a question.


"Dr. Hill, I’m sorry, I have to say this, you say based on statements you’ve heard that some in this committee believe Russia did not conduct a campaign against this country is false," he said, before decrying the Democrats' impeachment efforts as "a coup." "Coups create division," Wenstrup said.

When Hill asked if she could respond to Wenstrup, he angrily declared that he hadn't asked a question

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/impeachment-hearings-even-the-gops-witnesses-are-hurting-trump

With regards to "rushing", the Clinton impeachment process in the house lasted from 10/8 to 12/19. Trump's was 9/24 to 12/18.

Previous impeachment calls or being upset about the election do not demonstrate the process being unfair.

The Whistleblower's identity is protected. Why would it need to be exposed if they're investigating what he reported?

There's been plenty of wrong doing exposed. 

Justin Amash supported impeachment. 

Collusion wasn't an accusation.

The dossier isn't relevant to this.

[Dill]

(01-22-2020, 08:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: From what I witnessed, republicans were prohibited to call witnesses. Any attempts made to question witnesses provided by dems was interrupted, cut short and mostly unallowed. The dems were trying to race through this process because they want an impeachment hanging over Trump before the upcoming election. Let's face it, the dems have publically been speaking impeachment before the president even took office. This is nothing but a party who has refused to accept the results of the election and the american people. Where is the whistleblower anyway that caused all this? There has been nothing fair about any of this. No facts of wrong doing and since everything else has failed, their hanging on an abuse of power? 

Let's not forget these hearing only had dem support and zero republican support. There has been no collusion proven, there has been nothing proven. Hell, even a bought and paid for dossier by the dems which defrauded the court to get a FISA warrant which eventually blew up in their faces didn't work. So much corruption and waste of money that could have supported so many great causes instead of revenge for losing an election.

I know it was an honest question and I apologize for throwing some of my own frustration into it. It's very frustrating to continue to hear 3 years of attacking a president instead of working with him. Our whole political system is failing our nation miserably, and I feel most of this is driven by biased media refusing to tell facts. I think the american people are getting pretty tired of the BS too.

Gosh Harley. It sounds like you are getting your news from one source, point by point.

Why would you say there has been "no abuse of power" here? A day after the Muller Report could not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice, he began working against US official policy to blackmail the president of Ukraine into producing (not finding) dirt on Joe Biden. 

How does holding up aid, demanding a political favor, firing honest government officials who would not be corrupted--and then blocking all testimony from the WH staff--amount to "no facts of wrongdoing"? 

I know Jim Jordon and Devon Nunes were claiming "no wrongdoing" every day during the impeachment hearing, but can't you yourself--independently of them--tell that the aid WAS held up, conditioned on Biden dirt, the ambassador really fired?  And Trump's own ambassador to the EU confirmed his motives. All that happened, right? You see that evidence is being successfully withheld because those charged with upholding the law are allowing that, right?

[HarleyDog]

(01-22-2020, 09:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: You didn't.



This seems like a fair question.
In which hearings have you seen "Any attempts made to question witnesses provided by dems was interrupted, cut short and mostly unallowed"? Because that just did not happen.

And so on, through all the points I just made.

What hearings have you seen?

Did you just do what I thought you did? I ask a question, you say fair question, and then ask me the same question without answering it? Nice move. Let me be the bigger person and answer your question without shenanigans. I, like many, have to work during the day and was unable to watch live. So, I relied on replays from YouTube from different sources like MSNBC, CNN, FOX (Oh my, not FOX) CBS news, NBC News and even PBS. So yeah, that's how I watched the congressional hearings. During the day, while at work, I would check updates on MSN (seems to lean more to the left, but I like their layout and it's convenient cause it's my homepage). Does that satisfy your question? I understand the presence of a Trump supporter posting in P&R is like throwing raw meat into a lions cage. I get that. So, for now, I will just end my part of discussion here because there is no way I'm going to get any real discussion on this matter that isn't hate felt. Plus, I'm not in a position to get into any arguments or throwings of words.

As someone who has always said I'm not republican or democrat and that I just vote for whoever can BS me the most to believe in them, I seriously doubt I ever vote democrat again. I will exit this discussion with this, "Since you watched the hearings." Elise Stefanik is HOT!

[Dill]

(01-22-2020, 11:22 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Did you just do what I thought you did? I ask a question, you say fair question, and then ask me the same question without answering it? Nice move. Let me be the bigger person and answer your question without shenanigans. I, like many, have to work during the day and was unable to watch live. So, I relied on replays from YouTube from different sources like MSNBC, CNN, FOX (Oh my, not FOX) CBS news, NBC News and even PBS. So yeah, that's how I watched the congressional hearings. During the day, while at work, I would check updates on MSN (seems to lean more to the left, but I like their layout and it's convenient cause it's my homepage). Does that satisfy your question? I understand the presence of a Trump supporter posting in P&R is like throwing raw meat into a lions cage. I get that. So, for now, I will just end my part of discussion here because there is no way I'm going to get any real discussion on this matter that isn't hate felt. Plus, I'm not in a position to get into any arguments or throwings of words.

As someone who has always said I'm not republican or democrat and that I just vote for whoever can BS me the most to believe in them, I seriously doubt I ever vote democrat again. I will exit this discussion with this, "Since you watched the hearings." Elise Stefanik is HOT!

You got responses from three people, answering your questions in specific terms and asking substantive questions in return. No one has treated you disrespectfully, certainly not like "raw meat."

I, for example, asked you questions focusing on the factual basis of the case against Trump.  Bpat offered specific, concrete examples of Republicans questioning witnesses or wasting their questioning time just to berate a courageous witness. With links.

In return you've only responded to Hollo, telling him how many news stations you watch.  He asked about your sources, because you said Republicans were not allowed to call witnesses and "mostly" couldn't question them. You also said there "no facts of wrongdoing." Since those claims are factually wrong, he was trying to figure out whether and how much of the hearings you had actually seen or read about, and from what sources. I.e., he was being careful and polite, trying to understand where you were coming from. I am very curious about that too; hence all those questions in my post about what you understand to be "facts."

Now it looks like you just made some claims about "unfairness" based upon "facts" which turn out not to be facts (of the kind we regularly hear on Fox, not "leftist" MSNBC).   If there is no "real discussion" here, that is only because you have chosen to exit when asked to clarify and support your claims.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-22-2020, 11:22 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: As someone who has always said I'm not republican or democrat and that I just vote for whoever can BS me the most to believe in them, I seriously doubt I ever vote democrat again. 

I appreciate the honesty. And it saddens me that "they are who we thought they were."

A reality TV show host, draft dodging, silver spoon, sexual deviant, conman, has force fed you a fire-hose stream of bullshit. And you drank it up.

[hollodero]

(01-22-2020, 11:22 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Did you just do what I thought you did?

No.

Rather, you asked me what facts I think you ignore.
One of those facts you ignore is that you're wrong regarding many circumstances of the hearings. I'm really sorry that you're wrong about them. But you just are. Don't be offended by me saying so.

Then you asked me if I have seen the same hearings you saw. Which is not a genuine question to begin with, and tough to answer, because obviously I haven't. Since you saw hearings where Reps couldn't even ask questions. Which is, again, mind-boggingly untrue. Again, don't be mad at me for you being wrong.

(01-22-2020, 11:22 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I understand the presence of a Trump supporter posting in P&R is like throwing raw meat into a lions cage. I get that. So, for now, I will just end my part of discussion here because there is no way I'm going to get any real discussion on this matter that isn't hate felt.

I have no problem with Trump supporters. From what do you conclude that I "hate" you? Because I disagree with you? Because I tell you you're factually wrong when you're factually wrong?

This is really something I don't understand. Trump is tough in handing out verbal injuries. Supporters usually are too. E.g. there are millions of memes painting liberals as crybabies, as snowflakes, that have their feelings hurt, oh hahaha.
But as soon as you run into the slightest controversy, you feel personally insulted, call folks hate-felt, take your ball and go home.

This is snowflakeish.

(01-22-2020, 11:22 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: As someone who has always said I'm not republican or democrat and that I just vote for whoever can BS me the most to believe in them, I seriously doubt I ever vote democrat again. I will exit this discussion with this, "Since you watched the hearings." Elise Stefanik is HOT!

Yeah kinda cute, though a bit of a pastry face.

[GMDino]

Awhile back there was a discussion on here about how to approach people who believe differently than you.  Trump supporters was the main part of the discussion if I remember correctly.

On one side was the argument that we should approach in a questioning manner, try to find out why they think the way they do and discuss issues without emotions.  Less "fighting" more "talking".  (I'm paraphrasing a months old thread here as I remember it.  If I'm wrong I'll accept corrections.)

The other side (me) siad it doesn't matter because if you don't confront them with the truth it doesn't matter why they think they way they do.  And when you do confront them with facts and the truth they play the victim and they were attacked.

Anyway, just thought I'd bring that up.

So this is how FOX "news" is covering the hearings.

Fox News has the optics of covering the #ImpeachmentTrial without actually covering it. They've been showing screen-in-screen video of the proceedings without audio. Instead, hosts are providing Trumpian spin. It's propaganda giving the illusion of journalism. Remarkable. pic.twitter.com/NKbN2Sic1o

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 23, 2020

Tucker Carlson began his show dismissing the #ImpeachmentTrial by comparing it to "a movie written & directed by children whose ending you already know, & by the way, it's 20 hours long, in Hungarian, with misspelled subtitles." That's how his viewers will process things. pic.twitter.com/0PXgxFuXNA

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 23, 2020

Can't imagine why Trump supporters have a twisted idea of what is really happening.

Heck some Senators left to do interviews on FOX *during* the hearing.

Chief Roberts unfairly allows GOP Senator to skip out of trial. For a Fox News gig.
GOP Senator Breaks Impeachment Trial Rules To Go On Fox News https://t.co/q4McPnGZtZ via @politicususa

— Dr. Robert Fortuna (@psychdr100) January 23, 2020

As they complain about "no evidence" and refuse to allow evidence that was withheld by Trump.

[masonbengals fan]

Fox did break away during primetime while the Dems were making their case. I'll be shocked if CNN doesn't do the same thing when the Rep. get their chance.

[Belsnickel]

(01-23-2020, 10:29 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Fox did break away during primetime while the Dems were making their case. I'll be shocked if CNN doesn't do the same thing when the Rep. get their chance.

Yeah, that doesn't bother me too much. If you just want to watch the trial then tune into C-SPAN. That is what it's for, after all.

However, the Senator leaving the chambers to go onto Fox is ridiculous and should not have been allowed.

[BmorePat87]

(01-23-2020, 09:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: Heck some Senators left to do interviews on FOX *during* the hearing.

I believe that was during a recess