Impeachment Hearings

[Dill]

(01-16-2020, 03:55 PM)hollodero Wrote: Alright, so Trump broke the law. But honestly. What gives? You have no independent justice department any longer. And 40% still think he is a great president, that number holds steady in your ideological war, and so he can do anything. Breaking the law, pshaw. The jury's always his family, and they will always aquit him on that 40% basis that is sufficient for a steady senate majority.

He could shoot those frequently cited people on the streets and Lindsey Graham would still be appalled, appalled, oh so deeply appalled by something Lisa Page texted. Nunes will still accuse Schiff of wanting nude pictures of Trump; others will point to the Dems wanting to impeach that guy from day 1.

This really does not change anything.

U  r  rong, or I am not sure what you count as "change" here.

Critical mass is building.  If witnesses and documents are allowed in the senate trial, then we are going to see the GOP monolith crack.

This will put Iran's air defenses on high alert.

[Dill]

(01-16-2020, 02:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: Right, which means the argument of "so what if the President did do it, it wasn't illegal?" is now off the table. It also means that the defense, even though it's wrong, that the President didn't break a law so he can't be impeached has kind of fallen apart as well. I'm guessing though that we will soon get a tweet accusing this non partisian agency of being filled with a bunch of liberals who hate Trump.

Also, two officials from the Budget office resigned over the aid hold up.

Add the GAO ruling to Pernas' interviews with Maddow and Cooper and the Hyde text messages.  The latter may be fake, but provide another indicator of the Trump swamp of wannabe fixers. 

Pernas makes it clear that Trump's demand for the Biden investigation was not linked to any push for a real investigation.

So a "fact witness" says aid was illegally held up by trump while he directed his "private lawyer" and a thug to undercut US foreign policy and break election laws for private gain.  Right after the Mueller report refused to exonerate him of obstruction.

LOL  "Read the Transcript!"

[hollodero]

(01-16-2020, 05:31 PM)Dill Wrote: U  r  rong, or I am not sure what you count as "change" here.

Critical mass is building.  If witnesses and documents are allowed in the senate trial, then we are going to see the GOP monolith crack.

This will put Iran's air defenses on high alert.

Change would be Trump being held responsible. Which will not happen. 

There's nothing in it for republican senators to consider facts and new information. Trump voters would turn away from them and Trump opponents wouldn't reward them. You see a monolith cracking? All I see is folks hoping that maybe, maybe Mitt Romney will ever so slightly divert from party lines on some aspects. Which is merely a hope. All the others are quite in line. Including those other hopefuls like Susan Collins who states she does not care about Lev Parnas or any other additional information.

Lev Parnas will end up making the same miscalculation as Cohen made. That coming forward will change things. It won't change things.

And yeah the Iranians have a problem. They turn into the new always available punching doll, a void left open since Saddam.

[Belsnickel]

(01-16-2020, 02:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

GOP Sen. David Perdue, a Republican from Georgia and close Trump ally, told me the Senate should “absolutely not” consider new evidence. It said it was the House’s job to do that, he said

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 16, 2020

Republicans making it clear that they are ready to ignore any and all new evidence, no matter how damning.

Also making it clear that they don't understand how trials work.

[*bfine32*]

First off: As I stated earlier: The fact that Trump was more concerned about making the investigation public than he was actually investigating is all I need to side with impeachment.

As to the additional evidence: Is that how it works or do they rule on the evidence provide in the Articles presented by the House? I could see how one could be considered double jeopardy especially given Pelosci's "Impeached now and forever". Seems it's already been decided by by one group it just appears the other reviews their findings and concurs or not.

[BmorePat87]

(01-16-2020, 06:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Also making it clear that they don't understand how trials work.

They complained about due process in the investigation, even though the comparison was illogical, asking for things no one would get in an actual criminal investigation. Now that the trial is here, they don’t want it to mirror the criminal justice system anymore and want to make it just for show.

[GMDino]

President Trump on Lev Parnas: "I don't know him. I don't know Parnas, other than I guess I had pictures taken which I do with thousands of people." pic.twitter.com/h8NDaysOjE

— CSPAN (@cspan) January 16, 2020

 

Just wondering, @realDonaldTrump, if you have never talked to Lev Parnas, then how is Lev introducing you to other people in this video as if you are his date?pic.twitter.com/hs2FIrKSZj

— Bill Maxwell ? #CountryOverParty (@Bill_Maxwell_) January 16, 2020

 

True to his word, Parnas' attorney released a video of Parnas speaking to Trump after Trump declared 30 minutes ago that he had never spoken to him: Parnas’ lawyer releases video of Trump talking with Parnas — after president says he never spoke with him https://t.co/MvKBZUmzdI

— BeachPretzel (@BeachPretzel2) January 16, 2020

[Belsnickel]

(01-16-2020, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the additional evidence: Is that how it works or do they rule on the evidence provide in the Articles presented by the House? I could see how one could be considered double jeopardy especially given Pelosci's "Impeached now and forever". Seems it's already been decided by by one group it just appears the other reviews their findings and concurs or not.

They decide on those rules in the Senate each time. The Senate trials of both Johnson and Clinton involved additional evidence and witnesses, so while there is not a ton of precedent, that is the precedent for these things. Of course, in a trial within the criminal justice system things don't end after opening statements. Evidence and witnesses are introduced throughout the trial to strengthen the case.

[GMDino]

Trump never even made use of the 2016 map that was on his desk during the prayer event he lied his way through. It was apparently just there for emotional support. pic.twitter.com/zWvkAdpW0F

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 16, 2020

 

[GMDino]

Left: McConnell admitting he won't be impartial

Right: McConnell signing an oath to be impartial. pic.twitter.com/ijvVBEskRU

— Adam Best (@adamcbest) January 16, 2020

 

[hollodero]

(01-16-2020, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First off: As I stated earlier: The fact that Trump was more concerned about making the investigation public than he was actually investigating is all I need to side with impeachment.

To that point. You also stated that if the republican senate does not convict him, you will consider Trump free of guilt. Is that still true? Because if so, your stance seems pretty moot.

(01-16-2020, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the additional evidence: Is that how it works or do they rule on the evidence provide in the Articles presented by the House? I could see how one could be considered double jeopardy

How is it double jeopardy. There wasn't any jeopardy as of now. Just a prosecutorial body gathering evidence and then pressing charges. Now it's in court. I can't imagine a defense lawyer opposing additional evidence during a trial on the grounds of "double jeopardy".

Also, on a sidenote, good job holding the articles up. It gave Parnas the chance to talk, and Republicans the chance to additionally ignore what Parnas says.

(01-16-2020, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: it just appears the other reviews their findings and concurs or not.

But these others don't review them. And many said so from the start.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-16-2020, 12:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, this is some fun news heading into the trial: White House hold on Ukraine aid violated federal law, congressional watchdog says


More at the link.

Per the link, it really doesn't seem to be a crime as their are no criminal penalties attached and no prosecution involved.  It's happened several times before to Bush, Obama and Clinton.  

[BmorePat87]

(01-17-2020, 11:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Per the link, it really doesn't seem to be a crime as their are no criminal penalties attached and no prosecution involved.  It's happened several times before to Bush, Obama and Clinton.  

Not a crime, just a violation of the law regarding how the President can impound money. Violating it hurts the administration's argument that their actions were legal or justified. As the leaked emails showed, the Pentagon hounded the OMB to take precautions so that they did not violate this law.

[GMDino]

(01-17-2020, 11:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Per the link, it really doesn't seem to be a crime as their are no criminal penalties attached and no prosecution involved.  It's happened several times before to Bush, Obama and Clinton.  

Maybe impeachment is a fit penalty for breaking the law?

Quote:The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that reports to Congress, found the Trump administration violated a law that governs how the White House disburses money approved by Congress.

Not that the gop cares about silly little things like "laws" when they "violate" them.  Heck they don't care about anything republicans violate from laws to women.  

[*michaelsean*]

(01-17-2020, 11:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe impeachment is a fit penalty for breaking the law?



Not that the gop cares about silly little things like "laws" when they "violate" them.  Heck they don't care about anything republicans violate from laws to women.  

What I'm saying is this has happened before, and impeachment was never a part of the conversation, so I don't think this is the event horizon Pelosi seems to be saying it is.  I don't think it adds much to the case.

[GMDino]

(01-17-2020, 11:55 AM)michaelsean Wrote: What I'm saying is this has happened before, and impeachment was never a part of the conversation, so I don't think this is the event horizon Pelosi seems to be saying it is.  I don't think it adds much to the case.

Not to be obtuse, but when it "happened before" did the sitting POTUs ask the country we were withholding the funds from to announce an investigation into a political rival?  Did any of the other presidents then attempt to hide the call by moving it to a secret server?   Did they relase the funds only after they were told a whistleblower had reported the call? Were they also involved in a plan to remove an ambassador while allegedly stalking them?  How about did they have their private lawyer running a shadow diplomacy measure?

Just because funding was delayed doesn't mean the circumstances were the same.  

[*michaelsean*]

(01-17-2020, 12:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not to be obtuse, but when it "happened before" did the sitting POTUs ask the country we were withholding the funds from to announce an investigation into a political rival?  Did any of the other presidents then attempt to hide the call by moving it to a secret server?   Did they relase the funds only after they were told a whistleblower had reported the call? Were they also involved in a plan to remove an ambassador while allegedly stalking them?  How about did they have their private lawyer running a shadow diplomacy measure?

Just because funding was delayed doesn't mean the circumstances were the same.  

Well no, all that other stuff is the stuff.  I just don't think this adds to it.

[GMDino]

(01-17-2020, 12:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well no, all that other stuff is the stuff.  I just don't think this adds to it.

All the "other stuff" is why he is being impeached over it.  Withholding the funds would be fine without all the "other stuff".

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 02:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: To that point. You also stated that if the republican senate does not convict him, you will consider Trump free of guilt. Is that still true? Because if so, your stance seems pretty moot.

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.

Quote:How is it double jeopardy. There wasn't any jeopardy as of now. Just a prosecutorial body gathering evidence and then pressing charges. Now it's in court. I can't imagine a defense lawyer opposing additional evidence during a trial on the grounds of "double jeopardy".

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.

Quote:Also, on a sidenote, good job holding the articles up. It gave Parnas the chance to talk, and Republicans the chance to additionally ignore what Parnas says.

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.

Quote:But these others don't review them. And many said so from the start.

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.

[Dill]

(01-17-2020, 12:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: hollodero Wrote: To that point. You also stated that if the republican senate does not convict him, you will consider Trump free of guilt. Is that still true? Because if so, your stance seems pretty moot.

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.

Are you fully aware that you answered a different question than the one Hollo asked?

(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.

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.