Impeachment Hearings

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 05:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Republicans have not been denied any witnesses that that would help them find the truth about what Trump did.

They were denied witnesses; no one can dispute that, but you can assert they weren't denied any that would help them find the truth about Trump. What an amazing gift you have. 

[hollodero]

(01-17-2020, 04:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fair enough, perhaps your ho will change once the ball's in the GOP's home court and damning the process is all they have, just like it's all the GOP had with the ball in the Dems home court.

Yeah, about that. I fail to see what was so terribly unfair about the process in the house, how complaining about the process is all the GOP could possibly do.
The GOP got equal time in the hearings. They had every opportunity to question the witnesses, to bring into question what they testified to. They used their time unwisely, imho, by doing the shameful things I (partly) listed instead of trying to refute the testimonies. Maybe there was nothing to refute, for the case seems air-tight. But if so, that's not the Dems' fault.

The GOP also got witnesses. They sure did not get just any witness, they did not get Hunter Biden. Which just makes sense, Hunter Biden had nothing to contribute to the matter at hand. They also did not get the whistleblower, for his identity is protected - and there was nothing distinct he could have added that was not already corroborated. OK, so there were things they did not get. That imho is not the same as "they could do nothing but damn the process". On what grounds do you say that?

Now what happens in the senate, that's up to how the process looks there. E.g. if McConnell just votes to dismiss, then yeah that would actually be unfair in a way the process in the house was not.

(01-17-2020, 04:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do not applaud the holding of the articles along with a great many other things and I definitely think the speaker's decision to hold them is something not worthy of applause.  

I said it was a good job, in a tactical sense. Many new informations came out in those few weeks, that paint an even more damning picture and add pressure to the GOP senators to do the "right thing". I really can not see anything nefarious or morally wrong in holding the articles, and she did not break any regulation by doing so either. She just used a tool she had. What, in your opinion, was so wrong about that?

-- If you need an answer, I even got one. It was a bit weird to see Dems first stating how urgent this all was just to hold up the articles afterwards. But since many senators were already committed to acquit anyways, that doesn't seem to matter much.

[hollodero]

(01-17-2020, 05:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They were denied witnesses;

Btw. so were the Dems. And the witnesses they were denied would have been way more essential. Like Bolton, Eisenberg, Perry, Pompeo, Mulvaney etc.

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 05:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, about that. I fail to see what was so terribly unfair about the process in the house, how complaining about the process is all the GOP could possibly do.
The GOP got equal time in the hearings. They had every opportunity to question the witnesses, to bring into question what they testified to. They used their time unwisely, imho, by doing the shameful things I (partly) listed instead of trying to refute the testimonies. Maybe there was nothing to refute, for the case seems air-tight. But if so, that's not the Dems' fault.

The GOP also got witnesses. They sure did not get just any witness, they did not get Hunter Biden. Which just makes sense, Hunter Biden had nothing to contribute to the matter at hand. They also did not get the whistleblower, for his identity is protected - and there was nothing distinct he could have added that was not already corroborated. OK, so there were things they did not get. That imho is not the same as "they could do nothing but damn the process". On what grounds do you say that?

Now what happens in the senate, that's up to how the process looks there. E.g. if McConnell just votes to dismiss, then yeah that would actually be unfair in a way the process in the house was not.



I said it was a good job, in a tactical sense. Many new informations came out in those few weeks, that paint an even more damning picture and add pressure to the GOP senators to do the "right thing". I really can not see anything nefarious or morally wrong in holding the articles, and she did not break any regulation by doing so either. She just used a tool she had. What, in your opinion, was so wrong about that?

-- If you need an answer, I even got one. It was a bit weird to see Dems first stating how urgent this all was just to hold up the articles afterwards. But since many senators were already committed to acquit anyways, that doesn't seem to matter much.

The Dems got to call whomever they wanted in the striving to obtain the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth and the GOP got 2 that the Dems allowed. IMO that's not a level playing field nor is limiting witnesses a search for the whole truth. We have no idea what the whistleblower could have brought to light if allowed to be questioned by the GOP or what insight someone like Nellie Ohr could provide.

Her move did nothing to uphold the rule of law. She said she did it because the fore fathers weren't as smart as she. I said when she did I could care less, and I can only see it being classified as a "good move" by someone that has no other motive than to see the President found guilty. Crazy that now Parnas is a Dem darling. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 05:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: Btw. so were the Dems. And the witnesses they were denied would have been way more essential. Like Bolton, Eisenberg, Perry, Pompeo, Mulvaney etc.

The house did not deny a request for them to testify. Not sure that's the same imho as someone refusing to testify. Yet it was still 7 to 2. 

[hollodero]

(01-17-2020, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The Dems got to call whomever they wanted in the striving to obtain the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth and the GOP got 2 that the Dems allowed. IMO that's not a level playing field nor is limiting witnesses a search for the whole truth. We have no idea what the  whistleblower could have brought to light if allowed to be questioned by the GOP or what insight someone like Nellie Ohr could provide.

Nellie Ohr? How did she get into this? This is Fusion GPS stuff and an obvious distraction. It seems bringing her in would have the same effect as bringing Peter Strzok in to call him an adulterer. What has that to do with Ukraine. I mean, we could also bring in you or Arnold Schwarzenegger to ask what you two know about this. Nothing. OK. We couldn't possibly know that before.

The whistleblower's complaint was, again, fully corroborated. The accusations could stand without any of his contributions. And, also again, he is protected and acted under the assurance he was.

Lastly, I did not claim there was an equal playing field. Obviously the Dems had the steering wheel in their hands, as is just natural for the majority. I merely claimed that saying "the GOP could do nothing but damn the process" is wildly exaggerated.

(01-17-2020, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Her move did nothing to uphold the rule of law. She said she did it because the fore fathers weren't as smart as she.

Yeah, we had that debate. I still see your interpretation of what she said as a particlarly malevolent one. I did not hear it that way.

(01-17-2020, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I said when she did I could care less, and I can only see it being classified as a "good move" by someone that has no other motive than to see the President found guilty. Crazy that now Parnas is a Dem darling. 

Well, I did explain why I thought it was a good move in a tactical sense. This is, per se, independent from my wishes. My wishes, for sure, would be that Trump is held accountable. How you can claim he should be removed, but do criticize me for wishing exactly that, is puzzling.

And why you throw in the "Dems darling" line is beyond me as well. That is tendentious and not part of a fair evaluation. Lev talking sure is useful for Democrats, but what is there to be critical about. It just is. I'd blame Trump for Lev's usefulness, not Dems.

[hollodero]

(01-17-2020, 05:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The house did not deny a request for them to testify. Not sure that's the same imho as someone refusing to testify. Yet it was still 7 to 2. 

It's not the same. It's just, denying those witnesses, although that denial stems from the WH, is way more essential then denying the GOP the chance to slam Hunter Biden for something unrelated to the extortion scheme that is investigated.

[Dill]

(01-16-2020, 05:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

I don't think Parnas has made any "calculation" other than to recognize he is better off telling the truth and taking his medicine rather than remaining quiet as he is thrown under the bus. That cooperation will likely change some sentencing guidelines. I doubt he is much concerned with the change you and I would like to see.

Another Trump "fixer" who is not going down alone, his testimony will put more pressure on some GOP senators as well.  CNN and MSNBC are doing a decent job of "mapping" Parnas' testimony on to the documentary record so far, including the testimony of other witnesses.  Especially disturbing is his account of the concerted efforts of team Trump to fire an ambassador holding the line against corruption, so that the president could put his re-election above the US national interest. All Laura and Sean can do is repeat that Dems wanted to impeach from the get go and have been "wrong about everything" (i.e. the Russia "hoax") and accuse them of "groupthink" and TDS. Parnas is another "felon and liar" like Cohen. Still, not so easy to overlook how felons and liars become regular players on team Trump and get so much game time. Hyde is in there too now. If God works through a leader of bad character sometimes, that means, apparently, that leader has to hire other people of bad character to get God's work done. So it is getting harder to support the team God's man is putting in place.

Also, the popularity of senators like Collins has dropped considerably over the last two years. It's not clear that drop is because she OPPOSED Trump. It is quite possible the lack of backbone shown by her and other Senators up for reelection will become a factor in their decision to vote for or against witnesses.

And yes, I do see the monolith cracking. The spin and character assassination, the deflection from fact--all that becomes increasingly obvious. Even if the GOP continues to vote as a block and Trump is "vindicated," this will work against them in November.

By the way, Trump's "very unfavorable" assessment among active-duty service members is almost at 50% now, compared to 37% disapproval in 2016 and 43% in 2018. The needle looks to be moving and he is not finished making egregious foreign policy errors.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/10/15/support-for-trump-is-fading-among-active-duty-troops-new-poll-shows/

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/12/17/half-of-active-duty-service-members-are-unhappy-with-trump-new-military-times-poll-shows/

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 05:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: It's not the same. It's just, denying those witnesses, although that denial stems from the WH, is way more essential then denying the GOP the chance to slam Hunter Biden for something unrelated to the extortion scheme that is investigated.

I thought we were talking about the behavior/actions of Dems v. GOP in the house hearing.

WTS, I fully accept the house's findings and support them being tried. This all started because I simply hadn't reached a verdict yet. I feel a lot of the testimony to date has been one-sided. 

[hollodero]

(01-17-2020, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought we were talking about the behavior/actions of Dems v. GOP in the house hearing.

Yeah, I sidestepped.

(01-17-2020, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: WTS, I fully accept the house's findings and support them being tried. This all started because I simply hadn't reached a verdict yet. I feel a lot of the testimony to date has been one-sided. 

I really don't want to be cute by saying this - but might the reason why the testimony seems so one-sided just be that the case is so crystal clear?

For that is what I believe is the reason for all that perceived imbalance. That the facts really just support one side.

[fredtoast]

(01-17-2020, 05:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They were denied witnesses; no one can dispute that, but you can assert they weren't denied any that would help them find the truth about Trump. What an amazing gift you have. 

Who were they denied other than the whistleblower?

The whistleblower was not even there, so he/she has nothing relevant to add.  The whistleblower was like a police officer who wrote a warrant after talking to witnesses of a crime, but did not see anything himself.

[Dill]

(01-17-2020, 04:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, it's more of an opinion, one steeped in evidence. Is it your opinion that one side is only worried about the truth in this "somber and sad" affair? I wonder why the Dems didn't allow the GOP the witnesses they requested in this desire to find the truth?

Yes, I know how partisan politics work

Perhaps because I don't follow the "2 wrongs make a right" fallacy. 

Sorry if I have to say "Jeezzus" again.

"2 wrongs make a right" is an abysmally false analogy here.  What makes a "right" is that one side is focused on evidence, witnesses and the law. What makes a "wrong" is that one side focused on BLOCKING evidence and witnesses and ignoring the law.   

My OBSERVATION is that one side, and only one side, is focused on getting, presenting and evaluating material evidence and witnesses. That is not an "opinion."

I also observe that because someone on the fact-focused side called the proceeding "somber and sad," you respond as if that very appropriate statement somehow balances/cancels any difference between the parties, makes a "right" a "wrong."   And you characterize your inability or own unwillingness to recognize the difference between their behaviors as, somehow, a refusal of partisanship rather than just more smoke.

[fredtoast]

(01-17-2020, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  We have no idea what the  whistleblower could have brought to light if allowed to be questioned by the GOP or what insight someone like Nellie Ohr could provide.

Nellie Ohr?  I am pretty sure we know exactly what she could have added.  .  .   Absolutely nothing relevant to the issue under investigation.

I guess you wanted them to call Sean Hannity and Kellyanne Conway also, right.  Because how could anyone "get to the truth" without Hannity or Conway telling them what to believe?

[hollodero]

(01-17-2020, 05:53 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Parnas has made any "calculation" other than to recognize he is better off telling the truth and taking his medicine rather than remaining quiet as he is thrown under the bus. That cooperation will likely change some sentencing guidelines. I doubt he is much concerned with the change you and I would like to see.

Oh sure, I agree. It's what I meant by saying "calculation". Just like Cohen. I do not believe any of them that they have come to their senses and found a moral compass. They want to save their skin and they believe telling it all will do that, will help them reducing their sentence, and will remove the bus they're thrown under. I guess Parnas will be just as wrong as Cohen was though.

(01-17-2020, 05:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Another Trump "fixer" who is not going down alone, his testimony will put more pressure on some GOP senators as well.

I hope you're right, but I disagree. For reasons stated at length :)

(01-17-2020, 05:53 PM)Dill Wrote:   CNN and MSNBC are doing a decent job of "mapping" Parnas' testimony on to the documentary record so far, including the testimony of other witnesses.  Especially disturbing is his account of the concerted efforts of team Trump to fire an ambassador holding the line against corruption

Yep. A Yovanovichhunt.
I mean, this whole scheme alone should be enough to appall everyone left or right. This is as wrong as it is eerily unpatriotic.

(01-17-2020, 05:53 PM)Dill Wrote: If God works through a leader of bad character sometimes, that means, apparently, that leader has to hire other people of bad character to get God's work done. So it is getting harder to support the team God's man is putting in place.

Yeah... that whole God works through awful people line is really amongst the weakest and most nonsensical arguments. But I guess people of faith don't vote for Trump because he is just as faithful. They rather vote for him because of judges. Which apparently are way more important than the dignity of the WH.

(01-17-2020, 05:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Also, the popularity of senators like Collins has dropped considerably over the last two years. It's not clear that drop is because she OPPOSED Trump. It is quite possible the lack of backbone shown by her and other Senators up for reelection will become a factor in their decision to vote for or against witnesses.

She's an outlier though. For most senators, this is about avoiding getting primaried by the local Roy Moores. As for her, I guess it still is about the team and being a team player. And again, not being a team player will not be rewarded by democrat-leaning voters, but heavily punished by republican-leaning voters. Standing up to Trump is no election-winning strategy.
To me, she's one of those persons that try to pretend to have character, but will buckle in the end.

(01-17-2020, 05:53 PM)Dill Wrote: And yes, I do see the monolith cracking. The spin and character assassination, the deflection from fact--all that becomes increasingly obvious.

That was also true three years ago though.

(01-17-2020, 05:53 PM)Dill Wrote: By the way, Trump's "very unfavorable" assessment among active-duty service members is almost at 50% now, compared to 37% disapproval in 2016 and 43% in 2018.

Yeah well maybe in this subgroup he loses support. Overall, he does not.

[fredtoast]

(01-17-2020, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  IMO that's not a level playing field nor is limiting witnesses a search for the whole truth.

Our judicial system disagrees with you.  They have consistently ruled that attempting to introduce evidence that is not relevant to the issue at trial is a violation of Due Process.

[Dill]

(01-17-2020, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I feel a lot of the testimony to date has been one-sided. 

Yeah, I wondered about that too.

Where are the people to testify that Ukraine aid was not held up after the phone call to Yelensky and not released once the whistleblower story leaked? Where are those who will testify the ambassador was only fired because she was a bad ambassador? Where are the witnesses to Trump's well known and long-standing campaign against corruption in US aid receipients, which went well beyond the Ukraine, Burisma and the Bidens?

Dems have not allowed anyone to testify who could corroborate what our intel services (aka. the deep state) claim is NOT the case--namely that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for hacking the US election. We need to hear from Guiliani.

It is quite possible that cross examination could establish the whistelblower--and both Bidens--are hard core Democrats and so anti-trump.

I would subpoena members of the squad, too, to show that they had planned to impeach Trump all along.  The whole impeachment case falls apart then, regardless of whether Trump has actually committed high crimes and broken the law.

[BmorePat87]

(01-17-2020, 05:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: Nellie Ohr? How did she get into this? This is Fusion GPS stuff and an obvious distraction. It seems bringing her in would have the same effect as bringing Peter Strzok in to call him an adulterer. What has that to do with Ukraine. I mean, we could also bring in you or Arnold Schwarzenegger to ask what you two know about this. Nothing. OK. We couldn't possibly know that before.

The whistleblower's complaint was, again, fully corroborated. The accusations could stand without any of his contributions. And, also again, he is protected and acted under the assurance he was.

Lastly, I did not claim there was an equal playing field. Obviously the Dems had the steering wheel in their hands, as is just natural for the majority. I merely claimed that saying "the GOP could do nothing but damn the process" is wildly exaggerated.



Yeah, we had that debate. I still see your interpretation of what she said as a particlarly malevolent one. I did not hear it that way.



Well, I did explain why I thought it was a good move in a tactical sense. This is, per se, independent from my wishes. My wishes, for sure, would be that Trump is held accountable. How you can claim he should be removed, but do criticize me for wishing exactly that, is puzzling.

And why you throw in the "Dems darling" line is beyond me as well. That is tendentious and not part of a fair evaluation. Lev talking sure is useful for Democrats, but what is there to be critical about. It just is. I'd blame Trump for Lev's usefulness, not Dems.

Adam Schiff, the Whistleblower, the anonymous sources mentioned by the Whistleblower and Vindman whose identities were not disclosed so to not compromise the Whistleblower's legally protected anonymity, Hunter Biden, another board member of Burisma, someone involved with the Steele Dossier, and a DNC staffer alleged to be looking up dirt on Trump in 2016...

A solid list of witnesses that are in no way relevant to determining if the President's actions were an abuse of power or not. 

Oh and he also wanted "all witnesses requested by the President".


Of course, the White House refused to participate.

[BmorePat87]

(01-17-2020, 06:40 PM)Dill Wrote: Yeah, I wondered about that too.

Where are the people to testify that Ukraine aid was not held up after the phone call to Yelensky and not released once the whistleblower story leaked? Where are those who will testify the ambassador was only fired because she was a bad ambassador? Where are the witnesses to Trump's well known and long-standing campaign against corruption in US aid receipients, which went well beyond the Ukraine, Burisma and the Bidens?

Dems have not allowed anyone to testify who could corroborate what our intel services (aka. the deep state) claim is NOT the case--namely that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for hacking the US election. We need to hear from Guiliani.

It is quite possible that cross examination could establish the whistelblower--and both Bidens--are hard core Democrats and so anti-trump.

I would subpoena members of the squad, too, to show that they had planned to impeach Trump all along.  The whole impeachment case falls apart then, regardless of whether Trump has actually committed high crimes and broken the law.

If only numerous administration officials who could theoretically exonerate the President were subpoenaed...

I know that Trump, interested in due process and the truth, would make these people testify that it was a "perfect call". He'd have no reason to try to block them, right?

[*bfine32*]

Folks are free to believe the House investigation's only motive was to "find the truth". I'm gonna roll with its motivation was to find enough to impeach POTUS. It's ok if we differ on that.

My "mistake" in this thread was not already assigning a verdict and wanting to hear the defense and the Senate trial prior to doing so.

I learned quite a bit in the House hearings and some changed my stance. However, I do believe it was partisan and maybe more can come out when the defense has its day in court.

But that's just me.

[GMDino]

And there is Brett Kavanaugh right behind him https://t.co/oJ1JRQZg8F

— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) January 17, 2020