Impeachment Hearings

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-21-2019, 05:39 PM)GMDino Wrote:

SWALWELL on Nunes: "He may be the fact witness if he is working with indicted individuals around our investigation."

Swalwell asks to submit for the record this DB article that Lev Parnas helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Nunes in 2018: https://t.co/YCn7QWEwi7

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) November 21, 2019

 

I believe 100% Numb Nuts Nunes and Jockstrap Jim are threats to my country.

The fact they are front and center and leading the charge for the Republicans right now is disgusting. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-21-2019, 01:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That really seems the best way to do it. I assume POTUS can call witnesses on his behalf?

Yes. Witnesses can be called and the Senate has subpoena power, as well, to compel them.

(11-21-2019, 03:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'd really love to say Nunes did anything of merit but this is it:

Nunes is basically using the impeachment hearings as a way to get a bunch of right-wing smears on the Bidens into the record pic.twitter.com/S4LUgeLLSZ

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 21, 2019

 

I'd really like one of the witnesses to respond with "yes, I have heard of this ridiculous conspiracy theory" when he brings one of them up. Or, more appropriately, "yes, I am aware of this gross misrepresentation of events being pushed by extremist media."

[Dill]

(11-21-2019, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then you clearly don't know what ambiguous means. 
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.

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

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.

LOL Not so thick I can't see the difference between this:

1. 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. 

And this:

2. 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.
Not a hint of condemnation in stating that an "assertion" (someone else's) is "the issue." An assertion which in any case falls short of mentioning abuse of power. That's the reason that in all this back and forth and thanking people who "really" understood you, you never referred anyone to a specific statement in which you made "the exact point."

Or was THIS the sentence in which you made the same "exact point"?

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but having requirements on our aid is not extortion. 

Only two candidates left:

4. Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal. 

5. The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.

Accompanied by more floundering personal attack, but finally here it is in #296:

6."If Trump's intent was to exploit aid for leverage against a political opponent that would be wrong."

You could even add "Maybe not all that wrong. Like high crimes and misdemeanors wrong. But wrong, not just 'investigating' with intent to hurt."

If you'd said 6. in post #255 the whole gaslighting digression could have been avoided.

[hollodero]

(11-21-2019, 05:39 PM)GMDino Wrote:

SWALWELL on Nunes: "He may be the fact witness if he is working with indicted individuals around our investigation."

Swalwell asks to submit for the record this DB article that Lev Parnas helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Nunes in 2018: https://t.co/YCn7QWEwi7

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) November 21, 2019

 

Yeah, that one I found incredibly annoying. This is just giving in in throwing dirt. If there is anything behind those allegations, there's a place to deal with it for sure, but it was not this public hearing about impeaching Trump.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2019, 08:08 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Not so thick I can't see the difference between this:

1. 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. 

And this:

2. 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.
Not a hint of condemnation in stating that an "assertion" (someone else's) is "the issue." An assertion which in any case falls short of mentioning abuse of power. That's the reason that in all this back and forth and thanking people who "really" understood you, you never referred anyone to a specific statement in which you made "the exact point."

Or was THIS the sentence in which you made the same "exact point"?

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but having requirements on our aid is not extortion. 

Only two candidates left:

4. Putting conditions on receiving our aid is rather normal. 

5. The idea that quid pro quo is inherently unethical or a "high crime and misdemeanor" is simply not true.

Accompanied by more floundering personal attack, but finally here it is in #296:

6."If Trump's intent was to exploit aid for leverage against a political opponent that would be wrong."

You could even add "Maybe not all that wrong. Like high crimes and misdemeanors wrong. But wrong, not just 'investigating' with intent to hurt."

If you'd said 6. in post #255 the whole gaslighting digression could have been avoided.

That's a lot of words to say, "I lack basic reading comprehension".  I get that you enjoy petty nitpicking, but this is another level even for you.

[hollodero]

(11-21-2019, 08:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes. Witnesses can be called and the Senate has subpoena power, as well, to compel them.


I'd really like one of the witnesses to respond with "yes, I have heard of this ridiculous conspiracy theory" when he brings one of them up. Or, more appropriately, "yes, I am aware of this gross misrepresentation of events being pushed by extremist media."

I'm still kinda sad Nunes asked no witness about those nude pictures of Trump he amazingly brings up again and again. But no, the witnesses can't be too snippy in their response. It would open them up for right-wing media fire about being partisan, anti-Trumpers, biased etc. They can and should not risk that fur sure, they have lifes to get back to. So they have to sit there and endure all of it, even when they are asked about their evaluation of Christopher Steele or other irrelevant BS or get shouted at by Jim Jordan or any other ridiculous mendacious deflection they throw at these poor fellas. And they have to hide their utter disgust they sure have to feel for those that totally disregard all factually important matters and rather slander them or throw absurd smoke grenades than to admit anything negative about Trump.

To say something positive about Jim Jordan though, his timeline of talks he threw at Holmes were actually recited quite entertainingly.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-21-2019, 08:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, that one I found incredibly annoying. This is just giving in in throwing dirt. If there is anything behind those allegations, there's a place to deal with it for sure, but it was not this public hearing about impeaching Trump.

When an entire party has their heads buried in the sand, bringing up a report that their ranking member (who has proven he wants no part of investigating the concerns that started this impeachment) was recently involved with an indicted scumbag who is very relevant to the matter at hand this is a damn good place to bring it up.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2019, 08:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes. Witnesses can be called and the Senate has subpoena power, as well, to compel them.


I'd really like one of the witnesses to respond with "yes, I have heard of this ridiculous conspiracy theory" when he brings one of them up. Or, more appropriately, "yes, I am aware of this gross misrepresentation of events being pushed by extremist media."

Hill essentially did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/21/fiona-hill-will-tell-devin-nunes-his-face-that-his-ukraine-conspiracy-theory-is-harmful/

Quote:In the opening statement she will offer at her public testimony on Thursday, Fiona Hill, a former member of Trump’s National Security Council, will draw attention to Russia’s efforts three years ago — and now.



“The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today,” Hill’s statement reads. “Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career Foreign Service is being undermined.”

But Hill's statement goes further than that.


“I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine — not Russia — attacked us in 2016,” the statement says. “These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes.”


Hill to warn of ‘fictional narrative’ on Ukraine interference



Her statement is a pointed response to one of the useful narratives being promoted by Republican members of the House impeachment inquiry — including and especially the House Intelligence Committee’s ranking Republican, Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), who will speak immediately before Hill offers that opening statement.

More at the link.

[Dill]

(11-21-2019, 08:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's a lot of words to say, "I lack basic reading comprehension".  I get that you enjoy petty nitpicking, but this is another level even for you.

However, you sign off this issue, it won't be by specifying exactly which statement I can't "comprehend." 

I.e., the line where you actually said Trump's actions were "bad for democracy" or actually abuse of power.

How many posts went past your original before someone coaxed you into finally, directly, saying what you claimed to say from the start? So easy to fix; but you had to pin your fault of clumsy expression on others' understanding.

I don't enjoy nitpicking the gaslighting. But I also don't feel like letting it slide when people count on others letting it slide. It's like our little board mirrors political discourse at the national  level, where personal attack and deflection replace the "nit picky" attention to evidence and integrity of argument. Eventually people stop questioning and just let it go.

[BakertheBeast]

Sondland of all people should know quid pro quo when he sees it. Isn't this how he got his ambassador position?

Sondland: To trump, I would like you to make me an ambassador to some country.
Trump: You do do you. I can do that but you have to do something for me.
Sondland:  Ok, what do I have to do for you?
Trump: Give me a million dollars and say you are donating the money to my campaign.
Sondland: I can do that. Its a deal.

IE: Quid pro quo

[GMDino]

(11-22-2019, 04:05 AM)Dill Wrote: However, you sign off this issue, it won't be by specifying exactly which statement I can't "comprehend." 

I.e., the line where you actually said Trump's actions were "bad for democracy" or actually abuse of power.

How many posts went past your original before someone coaxed you into finally, directly, saying what you claimed to say from the start? So easy to fix; but you had to pin your fault of clumsy expression on others' understanding.

I don't enjoy nitpicking the gaslighting. But I also don't feel like letting it slide when people count on others letting it slide. It's like our little board mirrors political discourse at the national  level, where personal attack and deflection replace the "nit picky" attention to evidence and integrity of argument. Eventually people stop questioning and just let it go.

I haven't been following your discussion with ssf but this is what I was thinking about this morning and then heard it talked about on the radio:

What crosses the line for Republicans?

We talk a lot about how people don't care as long as there is an R or a D next to the name and for that 30-40% who will never change their minds that might be right but I think there are more than a few of us on this board who consider themselves "better" or "smarter" than that.  Or at least some claim to be.

I'm on record for wanting Clinton to resign due to his moral failings.  I wasn't sure if lying under oath about a personal issue was worth impeachment but him not being if office would have been the same result.

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

So what would?

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

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

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

If this isn't enough for you...what is?

Maybe we'll get straight answers and more clarity that way.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-21-2019, 12:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

See I don't know if the vote is "guilty of the charges".  I think it's more of a vote of removal.  Not one Democrat voted guilty for Clinton.  He did do what he was charged with.  So it may be a two part decision.  Did he do it, and if he did, is it worthy of being removed?

[GMDino]

(11-22-2019, 10:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: See I don't know if the vote is "guilty of the charges".  I think it's more of a vote of removal.  Not one Democrat voted guilty for Clinton.  He did do what he was charged with.  So it may be a two part decision.  Did he do it, and if he did, is it worthy of being removed?

That is my understanding too.

[Belsnickel]

(11-22-2019, 10:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: See I don't know if the vote is "guilty of the charges".  I think it's more of a vote of removal.  Not one Democrat voted guilty for Clinton.  He did do what he was charged with.  So it may be a two part decision.  Did he do it, and if he did, is it worthy of being removed?

(11-22-2019, 10:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: That is my understanding too.

I could agree with that. I guess the reason why I equate it with a determination of guilt is because a lot of people, including political scientists, will refer to the lack of removal of Johnson and Clinton as acquittals.

[BmorePat87]

(11-22-2019, 10:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: See I don't know if the vote is "guilty of the charges".  I think it's more of a vote of removal.  Not one Democrat voted guilty for Clinton.  He did do what he was charged with.  So it may be a two part decision.  Did he do it, and if he did, is it worthy of being removed?

(11-22-2019, 10:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: That is my understanding too.

(11-22-2019, 10:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I could agree with that. I guess the reason why I equate it with a determination of guilt is because a lot of people, including political scientists, will refer to the lack of removal of Johnson and Clinton as acquittals.

Just to be accurate, though, they do vote "guilty" or "not guilty". 

The perjury or lying wasn't as obvious in a legal sense as most of the public believes. It hinders on a deposition in which Clinton was provided a definition of "sexual relationship" and he denied it based on that definition. The way it was written, you could argue that he was correct, as ridiculous as that sounds. The definition required HIM to have contacted HER genitals, thighs, butt, or chest. SHE contacted HIS. 

So the Clinton defense team focused on that, suggesting that impeachment and removal on this was shaky. If he could technically be right, how was he perjurious? Republicans even began to drop the perjury argument based on this later in process when they were pressed on the specifics of their claims, something that was pointed to in the closing arguments of the defense. 

[Goalpost]

So an initial poll shows that the Dems message isn't being received well so far. Trump's approval has gone up. And those in favor of impeachment has gone down, in particular among independents.

[CJD]

(11-22-2019, 11:24 AM)Goalpost Wrote: So an initial poll shows that the Dems message isn't being received well so far.  Trump's approval has gone up.  And those in favor of impeachment has gone down, in particular among independents.

That's a shame

[GMDino]

(11-22-2019, 10:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just to be accurate, though, they do vote "guilty" or "not guilty". 

The perjury or lying wasn't as obvious in a legal sense as most of the public believes. It hinders on a deposition in which Clinton was provided a definition of "sexual relationship" and he denied it based on that definition. The way it was written, you could argue that he was correct, as ridiculous as that sounds. The definition required HIM to have contacted HER genitals, thighs, butt, or chest. SHE contacted HIS. 

So the Clinton defense team focused on that, suggesting that impeachment and removal on this was shaky. If he could technically be right, how was he perjurious?  Republicans even began to drop the perjury argument based on this later in process when they were pressed on the specifics of their claims, something that was pointed to in the closing arguments of the defense. 

The bold was the argument I remember.  As much as I hated what Clinton did he out lawyered the GOP on that one.

And again I didn't necessarily think it was impeachable but it was wrong and I wish he would have stepped down.

[GMDino]

Rather than testify under oath, or even provide written answers to questions, the POTUS is on Fox and Friends.

He's still using the "she/he didn't like ME so I had every right to do whatever I wanted" defense.

Trump on Yovanovitch: "She wouldn't hang my picture in the embassy. She is in charge of the embassy. She wouldn't hang it. It look a year-and-a-half, two years to get the picture up. She said bad things about me ... This was not an angel this woman, okay?" pic.twitter.com/mayhFy8jSG

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 22, 2019

[GMDino]

Trump is also still insisting Russia did NOT interfere in the 2016 elections and claiming it was Ukraine.

"They gave the server to CrowdStrike ... that's what the word is" -- here's Trump pushing the absolutely insane, debunked conspiracy theory that the DNC's server is in Ukraine and that Russia was framed for interfering in the 2016 election pic.twitter.com/PXClTXfJhd

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 22, 2019