Impeachment Hearings

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-21-2019, 02:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It was.


Correct.



Glad to hear it.



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



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



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


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

Here is your original statement:

(11-20-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but 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.

I’ve read it several times and I still fail to see where you acknowledged Trump’s wrongdoing even after you told me you did acknowledge it. You acknowledged Trump attached a condition followed immediately by stating attaching conditions to aid is normal. As if Trump’s condition wasn’t unethical.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-21-2019, 02:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: These three gentlemen completely understood my post.  It appears many of the rest of you did not.  We appear to live in a world of knee jerk partisan reaction.



I don't like this world.

How many others responded? Three? Mine would be one of those three. And It’s partisan and knee jerk? Damn, I only got the exacta when I was shooting for the perfecta.

[Benton]

(11-21-2019, 02:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: These three gentlemen completely understood my post.  It appears many of the rest of you did not.  We appear to live in a world of knee jerk partisan reaction.



I don't like this world.

Nah, I understood it, Im just not in favor of trying to downolay or justify what trump did.

Trump impeachment, you say? Yes, the topic the thread is about.

Again, I don't like using tax dollars to benefit politically. 

[BakertheBeast]

The Repubs now hanging their hat on the "Trump was concerned about corruption in the Ukraine" is one of the funniest defense excuse of the conman I've heard yet. Trump, mr. corruption himself.    

[CJD]

(11-20-2019, 08:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Watching this for the first time. Why does Schiff's chair have to be so much bigger than everyone else's?

well he is the chair man.

[CJD]

(11-21-2019, 07:37 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: The Repubs now hanging their hat on the "Trump was concerned about corruption in the Ukraine" is one of the funniest defense excuse of the conman I've heard yet. Trump, mr. corruption himself.    

I think it's funny that the Republicans condemned Sondland (and others) for reaching the conclusion that the aid was withheld because of these investigations based on what they were hearing and seeing going on around them with the general defense of "you don't know Trump's reasoning for withholding the aid or meeting, you are just assuming" (a popular phrase yesterday was "2+2=4") and then, a sentence or two later say "we know what was going on in Trump's head. He was concerned about the corruption that he literally never mentioned in the phone call."

We either know his intentions and must consider them or we don't and we shouldn't. You can't have it both ways.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2019, 02:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: These three gentlemen completely understood my post.  It appears many of the rest of you did not.  We appear to live in a world of knee jerk partisan reaction.

I don't like this world.

You do if you take the responses other than the two responses (and one post that said no one "understood" what you meant) as being partisan against your "point".

But that's probably because your original post didn't even address QPQ but rather extortion while ignoring the rest of the post.

(11-20-2019, 05:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: That should tell you how this has gone.

The Reps have not defended DJT and attacked Biden and demanded to know who the whistleblower is.  The Democrats have put together a train of evidence that leads to Trump demanding a public announcement of an investigation into Biden or no meeting and then withheld the approved funding.  The day the WH learned of the whistleblower Trump yelled "no quid pro quo" into a phone and then when the new report on the funding came out they released the money two days later.

Attempted robbery is still a crime.

Attempted extortion is still a high crime and misdemeanor.

But I encourage you or anyone to listen and read and then report your own findings afterwards.  Plenty of Trump apologists on this board who have had ample time to show Democrat mistakes or Republican strong points.

(11-20-2019, 05:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but 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.

I did say you were wrong...about this case not in general. You were arguing a point never made in the post you quoted.

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

A requirement that includes the public announcement of an investigation into a political opponent is.

He withheld the meeting.

He withheld the congressionally approved funding.

Then it was covered up.

Then, when they heard about the whistleblower he changed his tune.

Then he claimed it was about corruption.

It wasn't about corruption in 2017 and 2018...when there were not "requirements" on the funds with the old regime in the Ukraine.

It wasn't corruption in 2019...it was Biden running for office.

Even the two responses that "understood" your post pointed out that what Trump did was different than simply putting "requirements" on the aid because it was for personal gain.


You could try being honest when all the words are here for everyone to read.  It would be refreshing.

[GMDino]

This is very modern presidential.

I'm sure his supporters love it though because he is "annoyed" and "being attacked" so acting out like a petulant child thrills them.

I never in my wildest dreams thought my name would in any way be associated with the ugly word, Impeachment! The calls (Transcripts) were PERFECT, there was NOTHING said that was wrong. No pressure on Ukraine. Great corruption & dishonesty by Schiff on the other side!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2019

 

[Dill]

(11-21-2019, 02:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is, quite honestly, a lot of pontificating bullshit.  It's not complicated, if the government can enforce criminal sanctions against you for voicing your opinion, while you're not directly advocating violence (directly is a key word here) then you reside in a country that does not value free speech, no matter what the "free press index" indicates.  It is interesting that you used Hungary as an example of "Europe" considering they are constantly under attack for not adhering to "values consistent with the EU".

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

If people can address an argument as argument, they will. The ad hominem is a default position.

Or should I say "ad argumentum"?  It's my argument you are merely calling names here. "Pontificating bullshit" and "salad screed" lol. You won't meet the bar until you recognize why that tactic is always a fail.

You have scaled back your claim an inch, from "no" free speech to "does not value" free speech. So you do sense the danger in "changing the subject" to expand the legal/historical context of interpretation. (You don't get to dodge that by calling inclusion of variables  which undermine your position "dodging." Your superpower won't work here.)

But still, no descriptive or classificatory value in re-declaring that your standard "uncomplicated" and just the standard. Even if it's "undeniable" that some Germans got arrested for speech deemed, in their country, to precipitate violence, that does not somehow prove Germans don't value free speech (the constitutional challenge alone refutes that), or that they therefore have "no free speech," or that your standard JUST IS the sine qua non, any more than re-asserting that standard in all caps would prove it. The German example only establishes that your standard, as you interpret it, is not universal, that its interpretation varies even across countries who have incorporated the right to free speech into their constitutions.

So the real question is why you insist that "no free speech" is the only alternative to your declaration of what free speech is--even if it leaves us no way of distinguishing Europe from North Korea.

PS It is interesting that I used Hungary as an example because it is at the moment the European country most directly curtailing its press, the most illiberal. It was included to signal the range of difference in policy in Europe, juxtaposed to Sweden and Denmark, illustrating why I don't treat "Europe" as a monolith. If I did, that would just be piling one "uncomplicated" oversimplification onto another.

[GMDino]

This is really a good point.  By Trump's measurements we can't trust Trump.

Trump is a Democratic donor. Sondland gave $1 million to him and is still Trump’s ambassador to the EU. https://t.co/wF14EkOzu6

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 21, 2019

 

[GMDino]

Nunes has nothing left.

He's actually making the case for the Democrats.  Trump attempted to extort Ukraine, got caught and tried to cover it up.

But he's still trying to push the whistleblower angle.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2019, 11:16 AM)Dill Wrote: If people can address an argument as argument, they will.

I had no idea you weren't a human being.

[Dill]

(11-21-2019, 02:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: These three gentlemen completely understood my post.  It appears many of the rest of you did not.  We appear to live in a world of knee jerk partisan reaction.

I don't like this world.

LOL to the bolded--SUPERPOWER!

Best that can be said about your post is that it was ambiguous.

The people who agree that quid pro quo is not in itself a problem "completely understood" when you said any old quid pro quo was not in itself a high crime because they were tired of Dems using the term to describe an abuse of power. But one added that Trumps actions moved into the abuse of power category.

But others who "misread" you also agree that not any old quid pro quo is a high crime and misdemeanor.

They just also noticed that you did not make explicit that Trump's quid pro quo was not at all some "normal" part of "putting conditions on aid.

If you just say "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"--a kind of quid pro quo--and then follow that with two statements affirming that quid pro quo is "normal" and does not in itself rise to high crimes and misdemeanor, then you are certainly inviting the conclusion that you do not see a distinction between Trump's actions and normal "putting conditions on aid." 

That could have been avoided had you had stated directly: "While putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal, hijacking it for personal partisan leverage is not and could indeed be abuse of power and a high crime."

The whole digression which followed could have been avoided if, instead of counting who "understood" you and telling the rest to reread, you had you immediately affirmed what is not explicitly stated in your original post (despite claims to the contrary) namely that you think Trump's actions an abuse of power and NOT some normal "putting conditions on aid."  

[Belsnickel]

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

Assuming the rules don't get changed, these are the most current procedures for an impeachment trial in the Senate: https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf

The tl;dr is that the Articles of Impeachment serve as the "charges" against the official, in this case Trump. The Senate is then presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States (unique for POTUS/VPOTUS) to conduct the trial based on those charges. Witnesses are brought in, testimony is heard, evidence is received, the whole nine yards. Essentially, The House of Representatives acts as the prosecutor with POTUS as the defendant. The role of the Senate is intended to be that of a jury, hearing the case brought before them and determining whether or not the defendant is guilty of the charges brought before them by the House.

[jj22]

So what we are learning is that all this was because they didn't want to blame Russia for attacking America, and Trump was desperate to prove American Intel wrong and Russian Intel right.

Real Pro American Trump defenders, real Pro America.

All roads end with Russia.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2019, 12:07 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL to the bolded--SUPERPOWER!

Best that can be said about your post is that it was ambiguous.

Then you clearly don't know what ambiguous means. 

Quote:The people who agree that quid pro quo is not in itself a problem "completely understood" when you said any old quid pro quo was not in itself a high crime because they were tired of Dems using the term to describe an abuse of power. But one added that Trumps actions moved into the abuse of power category.

But others who "misread" you also agree that not any old quid pro quo is a high crime and misdemeanor.

They just also noticed that you did not make explicit that Trump's quid pro quo was not at all some "normal" part of "putting conditions on aid.

If you just say "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"--a kind of quid pro quo--and then follow that with two statements affirming that quid pro quo is "normal" and does not in itself rise to high crimes and misdemeanor, then you are certainly inviting the conclusion that you do not see a distinction between Trump's actions and normal "putting conditions on aid." 

Yes, QPQ is normal, but that doesn't mean certain forms of it wouldn't be wrong.  Your gestalt thinking on this issue is insane.

Quote:That could have been avoided had you had stated directly: "While putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal, hijacking it for personal partisan leverage is not and could indeed be abuse of power and a high crime."

Which is the exact point I made in the post.  Jesus Christ, you're thicker than pancake batter.

Quote:The whole digression which followed could have been avoided if, instead of counting who "understood" you and telling the rest to reread, you had you immediately affirmed what is not explicitly stated in your original post (despite claims to the contrary) namely that you think Trump's actions an abuse of power and NOT some normal "putting conditions on aid."  

I'm not really interested in writing my points in crayon.  If Trump's intent was to exploit aid for leverage against a political opponent that would be wrong.  I said that in my OP, I'm stating it again now for the less than capable users of the English language among us.

[GMDino]

FIONA HILL: "Some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia & its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country & that perhaps Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative perpetrated & propagated by the Russian security services themselves." pic.twitter.com/JZCMcpFuOP

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 21, 2019

 

[CJD]

(11-21-2019, 12:30 PM)GMDino Wrote:

FIONA HILL: "Some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia & its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country & that perhaps Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative perpetrated & propagated by the Russian security services themselves." pic.twitter.com/JZCMcpFuOP

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 21, 2019

 

I appreciate the snippets from Twitter. I have a SERIOUS case of Impeachment fatigue after watching 4 hours of Sondland testimony yesterday. There's just too many of these things haha.

[hollodero]

(11-21-2019, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If Trump's intent was to exploit aid for leverage against a political opponent that would be wrong.

To that point. Do you seriously have any doubts left that this was actually the case?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2019, 12:52 PM)hollodero Wrote: To that point. Do you seriously have any doubts left that this was actually the case?

Do I?  No.  Do I think there's enough plausible deniability to get Trump "acquitted" in the Senate, thus far yes.  I also don't think the majority of US voters care that much about this.  It remains to be seen who will benefit from this process in 2020 but I would bet heavily that Trump remains in office until that election.  Barring major, unforeseen, developments that is.