Impeachment Hearings

[masonbengals fan]

If the guy & his motives (Good or bad) that initially got the ball rolling on removing a US president (for the 1st time ever) isn't relevant I'm not sure who would be. But I guess that's the ignorant rube coming out of me.

[GMDino]

(01-27-2020, 11:25 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: It had no place and even sounded made up. If I'm Joe Shmoe watching this and hear it, I easily question the rest of everything else presented. He did the same with the call transcript. 

(01-27-2020, 02:03 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Be sensible. It's not a good strategy when Shifty gets up there and speaks garbage and grossly exaggerates, lies or misrepresents his views of so-called facts. To me, that just reinforces my opinion that this has all been a sham in the first place. But the biggest laughable part about all this IMO is that the Dems target in all this has been the democratic voters, as if they're trying to prove they haven't wasted the last 3 yrs solely witch hunting the president and not serving the american people. I think this whole thing has hurt the dems much more than they realize.

I'm sure the dems will eventually get Trump because, well, he's a doer and not a do nothing lying politician. Plus, he can't stay off Twitter long enough to let people cool down. But this impeachment will not be the time you get him.

(01-27-2020, 03:24 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: No - sorry, I just don't. I think some have chosen hate over dislike for him. Well, at that point there's no turning back and regardless if he saved a baby from a burning building, he would be called a liar and that it never happened or it would be twisted into "Trump threw a baby into a burning building, which is where most of the media is now. You do see that, don't you?

(01-27-2020, 05:38 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: 2 wrongs definitely doesn't make it right. Not saying that at all. I believe this is all about 2020. 

(01-27-2020, 05:56 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: I don't believe that it is. Especially the alleged/apparent coordination with Schiff & his subsequent lies about it. 

So facts cannot change what you "believe".  You don't seem to care about truth as much as defending what you believe.  Fair enough.  

[BmorePat87]

(01-27-2020, 05:45 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: House impeachment manager Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) made a stunning admission Sunday, implying that Democrats want President Donald Trump's impeachment to impact the 2020 election.

During an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," host Jake Tapper asked Lofgren why she instructed senators last week to not "surrender to the president's stonewalling" when House Democrats did not pursue subpoenas and force additional witnesses to testify.

"You didn't pursue it in court. You ultimately withdrew the cases and went to the Senate," Tapper noted. "Didn't you surrender to the president's stonewalling, in that sense?"

Lofgren responded, "Well, in that — I guess, in that sense, we did, because, if we had waited for three or four years, the election would be over. The issue would be almost moot."



Despite the House waiting to take impeachment action against Richard Nixon until after the 1972 election, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, also one of the Democratic impeachment managers, said last week that "the president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won."


The admissions align with what White House Counsel Pat Cipollone told senators on Saturday in the opening statements of the president's defense.

"For all their talk about election interference, they're here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history," Cipollone charged.

I think it goes without saying that House Democrats want him removed from office period. None of this is relevant, though. The only thing that is relevant is "Did the President commit an impeachable offense?". If "yes" then the President should be removed regardless of the intent of the House. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-27-2020, 06:06 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: If the guy & his motives (Good or bad) that initially got the ball rolling on removing a US president (for the 1st time ever) isn't relevant I'm not sure who would be. But I guess that's the ignorant rube coming out of me.

What the whistleblower reported has been confirmed. The conversation is now whether or not that is an impeachable offense. Why would their intent now be relevant? 

[hollodero]

(01-27-2020, 06:06 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: If the guy & his motives (Good or bad) that initially got the ball rolling on removing a US president (for the 1st time ever) isn't relevant I'm not sure who would be. But I guess that's the ignorant rube coming out of me.

You already perceive/foresee an insult... that is strange. I for one do not insult you and do not call anyone an ignorant rube. I also see no reason to think you are.
I see plenty reason to believe that you are a conservative team player who sees this as some kind of ideological battle. Pro GOP/Trump vs. anti GOP/Trump. (Which it certainly is as well.)

Regarding the whistleblower: He is like the guy who videotaped a misdeed. It is unimportant why he made the tape. We do not need to know his motives to stand there with his mobile or whatever and why he reported to the authorities what he taped. It is important what's on the tape. And what was on the whistleblower's "tape" is confirmed.
On the other hand, Trump has implied the whistleblower is a traitor. Which is no piece of cake, since many people take him very seriously. If the whistleblower's anonymity were to be revealed, he'd be subject to decades of hate. If not danger. And his example would make any future whistleblower think twice if keeping his mouth shut isn't more wise. And that would be a loss.
And for what gain? To question someone who has no additional information. There are dozens of witnesses that would have - but those shall be blocked. This guy shall be revealed. That doesn't seem like the obvious thing to do. Except you want someone to smear and blame.

Now I'd ask how this is an unreasonable standpoint. Didn't call you anything, mind you - also not thinking anything bad about you. Just asking.

[Dill]

(01-27-2020, 05:33 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Distortions, little/big massages of truth & misleading omissions have all been displayed by the Dems in this fiasco. But I guess that's alright because they aren't bold faced lies. Is that where we are at?

1.  I am not clear what "distortions" or big "massages of truth" of which the Dems are guilty.  Dems aren't covering up a crime and abuse of power; they are UNcovering a crime and abuse of power--or better said, a long term pattern of that behavior. The factual record so far supports their version of Trump's behavior. On the other hand, GOP is telling us that Trump was only fighting corruption when he withheld aid from the Ukrainians and then asked them to flag a political opponent--not investigate, just announce an investigation.  And they are obstructing the use of documents and witness testimony with specious, ad hoc legal claims, like "the House should have called those witnesses" and "Impeachment requires a violation of statute law."  Or they demand witnesses--like Joe and Hunter Biden-- who could not have been in the room when Trump cut aid and/or demanded an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden.  Or the protected "whistleblower," whose testimony is legally unnecessary now that it has been corroborate by Trump's own phone call "summary" transcript. What are the Dems doing that is remotely like this?

2. You appear to be appealing to a standard of honesty and truth here. Can that standard help you sort this out?  "Both sides" aren't abusing power or obstructing witnesses and documents.  That should be baseline for starting any comparison.  We are in a Constitutional crisis right now because we have reached a critical mass of voters who genuinely can't tell who is enforcing the law and who is actively obstructing it here, or worse, are actually fine with Trump breaking the law, and any little excuse rationalizes their embrace of untruth and illegality.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-21-2020, 10:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you cannot name a single President beyond Trump?

I believe that the White House Counsel highlighted a very specific instance involving Obama and aid to Egypt.  As I said previously, most foreign aid has some sort of conditions attached, and that is just how it goes.

Why are the Democrats trying to make a big deal out of Trump admin. pausing aid, when it's pretty much S.O.P. in American Foreign Policy decision making?

The entire Articles of Impeachment that the Democrats brought is a flimsy house of cards that only makes sense if you close your eyes, wish real hard, and swear on the Necromonicon that you hate Donald Trump..  

[hollodero]

(01-27-2020, 06:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why are the Democrats trying to make a big deal out of Trump admin. pausing aid, when it's pretty much S.O.P. in American Foreign Policy decision making?

Because he did it to get a sham investigation by a foreign country into US citizens announced? To gain an advantage in an election?

[masonbengals fan]

(01-27-2020, 06:31 PM)Dill Wrote: 1.  I am not clear what "distortions" or big "massages of truth" of which the Dems are guilty.  Dems aren't covering up a crime and abuse of power; they are UNcovering a crime and abuse of power--or better said, a long term pattern of that behavior. The factual record so far supports their version of Trump's behavior. On the other hand, GOP is telling us that Trump was only fighting corruption when he withheld aid from the Ukrainians and then asked them to flag a political opponent--not investigate, just announce an investigation.  And they are obstructing the use of documents and witness testimony with specious, ad hoc legal claims, like "the House should have called those witnesses" and "Impeachment requires a violation of statute law."  Or they demand witnesses--like Joe and Hunter Biden-- who could not have been in the room when Trump cut aid and/or demanded an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden.  Or the protected "whistleblower," whose testimony is legally unnecessary now that it has been corroborate by Trump's own phone call "summary" transcript. What are the Dems doing that is remotely like this?

2. You appear to be appealing to a standard of honesty and truth here. Can that standard help you sort this out?  "Both sides" aren't abusing power or obstructing witnesses and documents.  That should be baseline for starting any comparison.  We are in a Constitutional crisis right now because we have reached a critical mass of voters who genuinely can't tell who is enforcing the law and who is actively obstructing it here, or worse, are actually fine with Trump breaking the law, and any little excuse rationalizes their embrace of untruth and illegality.

 1. If you can't see any distortions/massages from Schiff & Nadler in the last few months I got nothing for you now that would open your eyes.

 2. I wish we could hold both sides of this to that standard but I don't see it happening anytime soon. It may have been like that at some point in our history but the more I think about it it was probably the same shenanigans on both sides back then too. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-27-2020, 06:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I believe that the White House Counsel highlighted a very specific instance involving Obama and aid to Egypt.  As I said previously, most foreign aid has some sort of conditions attached, and that is just how it goes.

Why are the Democrats trying to make a big deal out of Trump admin. pausing aid, when it's pretty much S.O.P. in American Foreign Policy decision making?

The entire Articles of Impeachment that the Democrats brought is a flimsy house of cards that only makes sense if you close your eyes, wish real hard, and swear on the Necromonicon that you hate Donald Trump..  

Can you name the Presidents who withheld funding from foreign nations in exchange for them investigating electoral rivals?"

Which political opponent did Obama ask Egypt to investigate?

[BmorePat87]

(01-27-2020, 06:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: Because he did it to get a sham investigation by a foreign country into US citizens announced? To gain an advantage in an election?

He understands that distinction. A common tactic in promoting lies is to keep repeating the falsehood and ignoring when you are corrected. 

[Dill]

(01-27-2020, 06:06 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: If the guy & his motives (Good or bad) that initially got the ball rolling on removing a US president (for the 1st time ever) isn't relevant I'm not sure who would be. But I guess that's the ignorant rube coming out of me.

GOP is currently claiming the testimony of Trump's handpicked EU ambassador and Guiliani's "fixer," Parnas, are "hearsay."
So the most relevant witnesses would be those whom Trump directly told to cut aid to Ukraine and pressure them to announce an investigation of Biden.

There is only one useful, legally pertinent question which anyone could ask the whistleblower at this time. His testimony might help establish that a NUMBER of officials recognized the illegality of Trump's actions. The whistleblower learned of the Trump ploy second hand, from other disturbed officials who had heard the call or seen the transcript--all recognizing that Trump has crossed the legal line. But this is hardly necessary, now that his complaint has been corroborated, and there is plenty of evidence of people complaining that, for example, the phone transcript had been placed on a highly classified server.  Also two from the budget office resigned rather than withhold aid. 

If I call the police hotline and tell them that Joe Blow has two pounds of cocaine in the trunk of his car and they search and find nothing, then that is the end of the matter. Right? Joe doesn't to go to court at all.  NO EVIDENCE. If Joe knows he has no coke, he may be only too happy to open his trunk and show the police they are wrong, rather than demanding a warrant and letting them impound his car.

But if they search and find two pounds, then all that will matter to a judge is if the cocaine was really in Joe's possession and there is evidence he intended to distribute it. E.g., did he purchase it himself from another drug dealer? Was he taking it to clients?  Plus Joe's record will factor in--the fact he was caught with coke once before but a jury let him off.

In most courts, it would be a weak defense if Joe claimed he found the coke and was bringing it to the police when he was stopped because he has always been engaged in fighting illegal drug use. And they would not honor a demand to know who dropped a dime on him, even if it may have been someone who was always out to get him. And the judge will certainly not be happy if he claims the police and courts are stacked against him because they just "hate" him, the charges against him are a "hoax" and a witch hunt--and so he wants to put THE PROSECUTOR on the stand.  That would just be clownish disruption.

Impeachment is different, of course.  To create a parallel, you'd have to imagine that Joe Blow had the legal power to forbid a car search. Even though prosecutors have witnesses claiming to have arranged for Joe to get money for the buy and to meet a drug dealer, to get a warrant they would have to persuade, not an independent judge, but a jury of 12, 7 of whom are Joe's relatives, for a majority vote to get that evidence. In that situation, you should not be surprised if Joe's lawyer appeals to the jury to subpoena the whistleblower, or even the "biased" prosecutor to convince his friends he was a target of hate, while keeping the evidence out of the courtroom.  Once again the police are out to get Joe, just like that previous "hoax" investigation which actually found cocaine.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-27-2020, 06:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Can you name the Presidents who withheld funding from foreign nations in exchange for them investigating electoral rivals?"

Which political opponent did Obama ask Egypt to investigate?

Except he didn't.  Hell, there ain't even any guarantees that Biden will even be the nominee..

Like I suggested earlier, the Dems need to go back to their Ouija board and ask for another miracle to solve their embarrassing situation, because right now they're looking like a bunch of buffoons.  Thus far, all that they have done is waste the Senate's time repeating themselves, over and over, offering very little of actual substance or "fact" as you like to call it.  It's strange that the Defense only needed about 3 hours to make their opening statement, and got right to the point, without all the melodrama.

[masonbengals fan]

(01-27-2020, 07:10 PM)Dill Wrote: GOP is currently claiming the testimony of Trump's handpicked EU ambassador and Guiliani's "fixer," Parnas, are "hearsay."
So the most relevant witnesses would be those whom Trump directly told to cut aid to Ukraine and pressure them to announce an investigation of Biden.

There is only one useful, legally pertinent question which anyone could ask the whistleblower at this time. His testimony might help establish that a NUMBER of officials recognized the illegality of Trump's actions. The whistleblower learned of the Trump ploy second hand, from other disturbed officials who had heard the call or seen the transcript--all recognizing that Trump has crossed the legal line. But this is hardly necessary, now that his complaint has been corroborated, and there is plenty of evidence of people complaining that, for example, the phone transcript had been placed on a highly classified server.  Also two from the budget office resigned rather than withhold aid. 

If I call the police hotline and tell them that Joe Blow has two pounds of cocaine in the trunk of his car and they search and find nothing, then that is the end of the matter. Right? Joe doesn't to go to court at all.  NO EVIDENCE.  If Joe knows he has no coke, he may be only too happy to open his trunk and show the police they are wrong, rather than demanding a warrant and letting them impound his car.

But if they search and find two pounds, then all that will matter to a judge is if the cocaine was really in Joe's possession and there is evidence he intended to distribute it. E.g., did he purchase it himself from another drug dealer? Was he taking it to clients?  Plus Joe's record will factor in--the fact he was caught with coke once before but a jury let him off.

In most courts, it would be a weak defense if Joe claimed he found the coke and was bringing it to the police when he was stopped because he has always been engaged in fighting illegal drug use. And they would not honor a demand to know who dropped a dime on him, even if it may have been someone who was always out to get him. And the judge will certainly not be happy if he claims the police and courts are stacked against him because they just "hate" him, the charges against him are a "hoax" and a witch hunt--and so he wants to put THE PROSECUTOR on the stand.  That would just be clownish disruption.

Impeachment is different, of course.  To create a parallel, you'd have to imagine that Joe Blow had the legal power to forbid a car search. Even though prosecutors have witnesses claiming to have arranged for Joe to get money for the buy and to meet a drug dealer, to get a warrant they would have to persuade, not an independent judge, but a jury of 12, 7 of whom are Joe's relatives, for a majority vote to get that evidence. In that situation, you should not be surprised if Joe's lawyer appeals to the jury to subpoena the whistleblower, or even the "biased" prosecutor to convince his friends he was a target of hate, while keeping the evidence out of the courtroom.  Once again the police are out to get Joe, just like that previous investigation which actually found cocaine.

 What if the police didn't get that warrant but arrested/charged Joe anyhow, went to court & then the police demanded that the court issue the search warrant at that point. All based on a tip from the friend of a client of a competing drug dealer who said he heard that Joe was dealing from numerous sources.

 Would it be too late for that warrant? Would he be outright acquitted immediately ? 

Wow, where is this discussion going. LOL

[Dill]

(01-27-2020, 06:33 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I believe that the White House Counsel highlighted a very specific instance involving Obama and aid to Egypt.  As I said previously, most foreign aid has some sort of conditions attached, and that is just how it goes.

Why are the Democrats trying to make a big deal out of Trump admin. pausing aid, when it's pretty much S.O.P. in American Foreign Policy decision making?

The entire Articles of Impeachment that the Democrats brought is a flimsy house of cards that only makes sense if you close your eyes, wish real hard, and swear on the Necromonicon that you hate Donald Trump..  

I can answer your question, Sunset.

EVERYONE on both sides of the aisle approves of the US government using aid to accomplish official US foreign policy ends.  Aid is rarely dispersed as a handout, but conditioned to the US national interest.  Aid is the carrot just as sanctions are the stick. So of course it can be paused or withdrawn if US conditions are met.  SOP as you say.

And such was Obama's pausing of aid to Egypt.  And aid to Egypt under Trump was also slashed. https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-09-07/senate-panel-slashes-military-aid-to-egypt.  No complaint from the Democrats.

So why is Trump's Ukraine action different?

Until September of 2019, both sides ALSO agreed that using officially sanctioned aid to accomplish private, political ends would be an abuse of power, especially if done by a president.

Trump stopping desperately needed aid to the Ukraine to force a pre-US election announcement that they were investigating Trump's primary opponent in the upcoming election--though the Ukraine had no grounds for such an investigation--would be an example of pausing aid for a private, political end at odds with official US foreign policy, and possibly risking the effectiveness of that policy.  Not to mention the irony of making corruption a condition of aid to a country we have always lectured about corruption. 

So what Trump did is not SOP. The complaint is not that he just "paused aid" pending certain conditions be met; the complaint is that the "conditions" were for private gain and working against US foreign policy, without Congressional knowledge and approval, not to mention encouraged by foreign (Russian) intelligence services. It was a way of using presidential power of the office--a power none of Trump's opponents has--to cheat on elections, to sow disinformation. Followed by obstruction of witnesses and documents.

[Dill]

(01-27-2020, 07:32 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote:  What if the police didn't get that warrant but arrested/charged Joe anyhow, went to court & then the police demanded that the court issue the search warrant at that point. All based on a tip from the friend of a client of a competing drug dealer who said he heard that Joe was dealing from numerous sources.

 Would it be too late for that warrant? Would he be outright acquitted immediately ? 

Wow, where is this discussion going. LOL

Well, if we are following the impeachment analogy, Joe can't be arrested yet, though he can be charged.

But again, he doesn't have to come to court if he doesn't want to, and the case ultimately comes back to that jury of 7 family members (whose jobs depend on Joe) and 5 Democrats. 

So long as Joe can keep the police from opening his trunk and finding the cocaine, then he can indeed claim that a competing drug dealer has fingered him, one who "hates" him. And he can brag that he has the key to the trunk and so the court can't get the evidence.

Further, he can forbid key witnesses, like the dealer he got the coke from and any clients. (Though one of his dealers has already testified against him.)

The friends on the jury can now argue the whole trial is a sham; the evidence is only hearsay. The prosecutor should have arranged for witnesses before he got the warrant.

[masonbengals fan]

This is getting fun. LOL

[BmorePat87]

(01-27-2020, 07:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Except he didn't.  Hell, there ain't even any guarantees that Biden will even be the nominee..

Like I suggested earlier, the Dems need to go back to their Ouija board and ask for another miracle to solve their embarrassing situation, because right now they're looking like a bunch of buffoons.  Thus far, all that they have done is waste the Senate's time repeating themselves, over and over, offering very little of actual substance or "fact" as you like to call it.  It's strange that the Defense only needed about 3 hours to make their opening statement, and got right to the point, without all the melodrama.

Your stance is that he did not ask Ukraine to investigate Biden?

The White House claims he did

"The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

[Dill]

(01-27-2020, 07:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote:
Except he didn't.  Hell, there ain't even any guarantees that Biden will even be the nominee..

Like I suggested earlier, the Dems need to go back to their Ouija board and ask for another miracle to solve their embarrassing situation, because right now they're looking like a bunch of buffoons.  Thus far, all that they have done is waste the Senate's time repeating themselves, over and over, offering very little of actual substance or "fact" as you like to call it.  It's strange that the Defense only needed about 3 hours to make their opening statement, and got right to the point, without all the melodrama.

What do you make of this statement from page 3 of the partial phone transcript between Trump and the Ukrainian president?

Trump: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.

"This whole situation" is pretty vague, and he seems to be following prompts from Russian, not US intel. Crowdstrike is a CA company and the DNC server has never been in the Ukraine.

Followed by this on page 4:

"The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/25/us/politics/trump-ukraine-transcript.html

"Read the transcript" Trump says. It looks like he is asking them to investigate Biden, doesn't it? EVEN IF Biden might not be the nominee, he is still asking for an investigation into Biden, though there was currently no evidence to warrant an investigation.  And Trump has already withheld aid before asking this. In a criminal court this would indeed be evidence.

[Dill]

(01-27-2020, 07:59 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: This is getting fun. LOL

CSI Washington!