1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Impeachment live hearing thread Nov 13-21 2019

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Nov 13, 2019.

  1. Rashmon

    Rashmon Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    19,155
    Likes Received:
    14,307
    Much like his draining the swamp by displacing the water with alligators, our mistake-in-chief was not trying to root out corruption; rather, he was co-opting corruption to coerce and extort a foreign country to investigate his potential rival. The GOP providing cover for him are accessories and should be held accountable as well.
     
  2. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,061
    Likes Received:
    13,411
    I'll give it a shot, using this timeline to help me keep the facts straight. Theirs is much longer and more nuanced, but I don't want to lose people in the details. I bolded the most important events. Because you asked specifically about the conditions on the aid, I focused on how we know about the conditions and I didn't try to also show how we know the investigation sought was for political motives. So don't move the goal posts on me -- we can do the corrupt motives later.

    • May 29: Trump suggests a White House meeting to Zelensky (the carrot).
    • June 18: DoD crosses their last hurdle to confirm aid is to be sent to Ukraine (only OMB is left, and their power to withhold funds is highly circumscribed).
    • July 10: Ukrainian officials meet with Perry, Bolton, Volker, and Sondland. Per Taylor, in this meeting Sondland ties the White House meeting with investigating Biden. Bolton than cuts the meeting short. (This comprises one quid pro quo of trading an official visit for the Biden investigation)
    • July 18: Trump orders OMB to block all aid to Ukraine until further notice.
    • July 19: Volker texts Sondland and Taylor about upcoming Trump/Zelensky call: "Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation."
    • July 20: Ukrainian aide tells Taylor that Zelensky does not want to be a pawn in US politics (shows that Ukraine knows they are being asked to be a pawn in US elections).
    • July 25: Volker texts to Yermak, Zelensky's aide they've been primarily working with, right before the infamous Trump/Zelensky call: "Heard from White House - assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / 'get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down a date for visit to Washington." Then after the call, ""Phone call went well. President Trump proposed to choose any convenient dates. President Zelenskiy chose 20, 21, 22 September for the White House Visit. Thank you again for your help!" (Aides obviously think there is a causal connection between an investigation and a White House visit)
    • July 25: During that call, Zelensky asks to buy missiles and Trump says "I would like you to do a favor for us though..." and asks for an investigation of Crowdstrike, mentions the Mueller investigation and a server being in Ukraine. Trump goes on to "lead the witness" by telling him about how the dismissal of Shokin was bad, the old ambassador was bad, that there is something to investigate with Biden stopping an investigation so please look into that. Trump stresses many times to work with Barr and Giuliani. (Trump never returns to the missiles question and its pretty obvious from the transcript that Zelensky is going to have to work with Barr and Giuliani on this investigation to advance his relationship with the US.)
    • "First week of August": Ukrainian officials learn of the freeze; they are told the freeze is not bureaucratic and that they should reach out to Mulvaney. Per the New York Times. (if you don't trust the NYT I guess you can discount it; if you do, this destroys the argument that Ukraine didn't know of any aid pressure. They do of course know about the contingent White House visit and they know they didn't get any agreement about supplying missiles. They would also know that the DoD approved the disbursement of funds about 45 days ago and the check still hasn't arrived.)
    • August 9-17: Many texts between Volker, Giuliani, Sondland, Yermak, and others to arrange the statement about the investigation of the election and Burisma. Sondland says Ukraine doesn't want to issue statement until White House visit date is set. They make plans to set date and have press conference soon after. Ukraine asks for formal request for an investigation, but Americans demur. (Shows WH operationalizing the exchange of the WH meeting for the statement on the investigation)
    • August 12: Whistleblower submits complaint to the IG.
    • August 28: Politico reports on Ukraine aid being held up (if you don't believe NYT reporting, this might be the first confirmation Ukraine has that the money isn't coming).
    • Sep 1: Sondland meets Yermak in Poland and tells him money won't come unless there is a commitment to the Burisma investigation. Per Taylor. Taylor texts to ask if we're conditioning aid on the investigation and Sondland says "call me." On the call, Sondland said Trump wants a public statement from Zelensky that they would investigate Burisma and Ukrainian interference in 2016, and everything including aid was contingent on it. (I don't think you can get any more overt than this)
    • Sep 9: Congressional Intelligence Committee is told of the whistleblower report.
    • Sep 11: Trump releases the funds to Ukraine. (Trump uses this in his defense but (a) lawmakers, including Republicans, were complaining he exceeded his authority in doing so, (b) he must have known Congress just got the whistleblower complaint so keeping the hold was probably politically untenable)
    • Sep 24: Pelosi starts inquiry.
     
  3. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,061
    Likes Received:
    13,411
    I probably count as a democratic poster now that I've sworn a boycott of all Republican politicians. I am in total agreement that impeachment is the way to go despite the election. I don't know what effect it will have. It might cripple Trump's re-election campaign; it might energize it. Don't know, don't care. It's obvious he abused his office, it's obviously a high crime. There is a moral imperative to impeach. There is a moral imperative to convict. If the Senate won't follow through on their obligations that's on their own souls. But, I'm glad the House at least is trying to fulfill their obligations.
     
    superfob, thegary, RayRay10 and 4 others like this.
  4. Rashmon

    Rashmon Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    19,155
    Likes Received:
    14,307
    mojomein time...
    [​IMG]
     
    Ubiquitin likes this.
  5. B@ffled

    B@ffled Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2019
    Messages:
    1,567
    Likes Received:
    787
    Great Response!
    I definitely concede that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate a couple of things which include the Bidens.

    I don't really KNOW which two of the possibilities you present are true. I definitely have not seen anything that 100% supports (i) the first one. That's what is supposed to be revealed according to Adam S.

    As to the other possibility (ii): There is an established pattern of Trump withholding money (see Puerto Rico) because he supposedly has concerns about corruption. Yes, Puerto Rico is a scandal, but it fits the pattern. It's also been testified that Trump said he just wants to know that Ukraine will look into corruption (don't have the direct quote/language) while stating in the same sentence there is no Quid Pro Quo. Now that is contradictory right there. He's holding back aid to ensure that the Ukrainians are committed to fighting corruption. That is a Quid Pro Quo, is it not? But no one in their right mind would impeach him for that, right? And I believe that by law, he wouldn't have been able to withhold the aid even if he wanted to. So it was delayed.

    What's obvious to you regarding the available evidence to support that his intent was for political advantage is not obvious to me. And it's not because I desperately want a specific outcome. It's because so far it's been a weak case.
     
  6. ima_drummer2k

    ima_drummer2k Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    35,571
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Wow, your counter-argument actually makes more sense than anything the GOP has put forth so far. And ironically, you were just playing devil's advocate. LOL.

    Of course it's still not valid for the reason you listed, but it's at least more sensible than anything I've heard yet from the GOP. Maybe it would go over better with the Trumpsters. Then again, it really doesn't matter, does it....
     
    Jayzers_100 likes this.
  7. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    12,825
    It all falls apart when Giuliani (the new Michael Cohen) operated a shadow government.

    It’s asinine to convince someone that the only way to root out corruption is to send your private lawyer.... Your argument is essentially that Giuliani was the only means to investigate corruption.
     
    mdrowe00 likes this.
  8. Andre0087

    Andre0087 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    8,256
    Likes Received:
    11,207
    Giuliani? Never heard of him.
     
  9. B@ffled

    B@ffled Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2019
    Messages:
    1,567
    Likes Received:
    787
    You've asserted an argument that I didn't make.

    Make the case. Provide FACTS. Impeaching a President is supposed to be a bid deal. To some, it's simply a means to an end and that's ok with them.

    When Clinton was impeached for Lying Under Oath, a crime that would have any of us incarcerated, I remember being outraged that the Senate (Republican majority) let him off. Years later (recently) when I looked back to understand the reason why they let him off I came to understand it. Removing a sitting President is a big deal. You'd better have a damn good reason. This?!! Really?!! I mean, REALLY??!!! We all know it's not gonna happen unless there is a smoking gun. The Senate will shoot it down.

    So knowing this, leaves me with the impression that this Inquiry is a political stunt aimed at hurting his re-election chances. And I really don't care if this helps or hurts his chances. I didn't vote for him first time around. He's the most flawed president I've seen in my lifetime and may take the cake when it comes to ALL presidents. As disgusted as the left is by "abusing his power", I'm just as disgusted by how the left has casually used impeachment as a political tool. Two wrongs don't make a right in my eye. And I don't think for a second that anything I say will change anyone's mind. I will say this though: If there is a smoking gun, then I'll be the first to speak up even though that means I'm at the back of the line and hearing a lot of "I told you so's".
     
    cml750 likes this.
  10. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    Refer to post #82 in this thread. Also,, I posted this in another thread.

    Let's go over it.

    Is Trump an officeholder? If you believe that he is that checks one of the boxes necessary for bribery.

    Did he abuse power for personal gain rather than the public interest? This is what it all comes down to.

    We know that Trump used his power of office to withhold military aid. Congress had approved it, and it was supposed to go through. However, Trump's administration refused to send the promised and approved aid. That checks that box.

    Mulvaney has admitted it was quid pro quo. There is testimony from the diplomats there that it was contingent on the Ukrainians announcing an investigation into Biden. Furthermore, Ukraine after being told that it was needed, agreed to do it. Witnesses have testified to all of that. Trump has put forward no witnesses showing anything different. So that box has also been checked.

    The only box left is if it was for the personal or public interest. We know that having the Ukrainians announce a corruption investigation into the political rival of Trump in an upcoming election is extremely beneficial to Donald Trump. I have yet to see any evidence that it is in the public interest. That would be the last box check-marked and make Trump guilty of bribery which is one of the only two specific offenses listed as being impeachable in the constitution.

    If you have evidence to show that it was in the public interest please present it. Trump has presented none.
     
  11. Rileydog

    Rileydog Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    5,390
    @B@ffled

    [QUOTE

    If there is a smoking gun, then I'll be the first to speak up even though that means I'm at the back of the line and hearing a lot of "I told you so's".[/QUOTE]

    Do you really require a smoking gun? Here I thought we agreed that the determination is made based on an assessment of all the evidence. Juan Valdez's post above paints a very clear, factual picture about what happened. I'm hoping he'll do the same re Trumps intent (political gain vs. legit interest in corruption in Ukraine).

    You've judged this to be "the left" abusing impeachment as a political tool. In part it is. How about the people who look at this and see (i) legitimate career diplomats sounding concerns about abuse of power and improper conduct; (ii) great efforts by the WH to run a highly irregular shadow operation led by Rudy G; (iii) a whistlerblower complaint that was judged to be credible enough to sent to congress (judged by a Republican appointed by Trump, wasn't it?); (iv) objective indicia that the WH knew damn well what it was doing was illegal (e.g., transcript sent to the "classified" server).

    Any reasonable person can look at these factors and conclude, dang, there's a real possibility of abuse of power here and the House has a constitutional duty to investigate.

    Or are you saying, no, that's all bullcrap and we should ignore the signs of a problem, simply because partisan bickering is at an all time high due to the political climate set by the moron-in-chief?
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  12. Rileydog

    Rileydog Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    5,390

    How about now? Please?
     
  13. B@ffled

    B@ffled Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2019
    Messages:
    1,567
    Likes Received:
    787
    Wow. I feel like I just watched 3 minutes of CNN. Thanks for that. I mean that is spot on for the talking points in the last 3 days. Trump did present when he called....oh wait. He can't call a witness, can he? How's he supposed to present anything? - How's that for some BS media rhetoric?

    Hey, I'm my own man. These guys putting on this show have to convince me or more importantly for them, convince the Senate. You guys aren't making any headway with me and I wouldn't never think for a second anything I said would change one person's view. Let's see how it plays out then the 'I told ya so' can happen.
     
    cml750 likes this.
  14. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    34,620
    Likes Received:
    33,563
    Do you remember that feeling, where one person volume posts to take over a thread with real-seeming but ultimately insincere and/or repetitive, obstinate, semantic arguments? Oh, I do. If y'all want to play that "new" poster's game, I wish there could be a separate thread for it. Some of us would like to get the occasional "live hearing thread" update.
     
    RayRay10, Deckard and Nook like this.
  15. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    Fair enough. I will make one more reply to the poster. If they, as appears, are ignoring readily available conclusions on this topic, I will stop.

    Edit: You are right. I just read his response a few posts below this one claiming things which simply aren't true. I am done with him. I am sorry I encouraged any responses from him to litter this thread.
     
    #95 FranchiseBlade, Nov 14, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
    TheFreak likes this.
  16. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    Trump could present witnesses. People who are sympathetic to Trump have been asked to testify and refuse to do so. Trump is also welcome to testify but won't do so. He has already instructed GOP congressmen how to handle themselves so they could present it. If you ignore it, then it is on you.
     
  17. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    12,825
    Sure you did, it’s an answer to your response about “valid reasons to withhold funds”.

    Instead of a transparent process, Trump sent his personal lawyer.

    I just did. Answer me what was the point of sending Giuliani? Was he representing Trump or Ukraine? So we have another corrupt Trump lawyer... within a year of Michael Cohen...

    Trump and Mulvaney already admitted their intentions... publicly....
     
  18. B@ffled

    B@ffled Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2019
    Messages:
    1,567
    Likes Received:
    787
    Do you really require a smoking gun? Here I thought we agreed that the determination is made based on an assessment of all the evidence. Juan Valdez's post above paints a very clear, factual picture about what happened. I'm hoping he'll do the same re Trumps intent (political gain vs. legit interest in corruption in Ukraine).

    You've judged this to be "the left" abusing impeachment as a political tool. In part it is. How about the people who look at this and see (i) legitimate career diplomats sounding concerns about abuse of power and improper conduct; (ii) great efforts by the WH to run a highly irregular shadow operation led by Rudy G; (iii) a whistlerblower complaint that was judged to be credible enough to sent to congress (judged by a Republican appointed by Trump, wasn't it?); (iv) objective indicia that the WH knew damn well what it was doing was illegal (e.g., transcript sent to the "classified" server).

    Any reasonable person can look at these factors and conclude, dang, there's a real possibility of abuse of power here and the House has a constitutional duty to investigate.

    Or are you saying, no, that's all bullcrap and we should ignore the signs of a problem, simply because partisan bickering is at an all time high due to the political climate set by the moron-in-chief?[/QUOTE]

    @Rileydog

    Your posts are by far the most reasonable responses.

    Yes. I require a smoking gun or an surmountable amount of evidence. Because we are talking about impeachment.

    I have judged this to be political stunt based on what I've seen so far. I do recognize there is a real possibility of abuse of power. And in my opinion the call was far from perfect. Again, not worthy of impeachment....in my opinion.

    I don't think you can say that the climate is entirely the moron-in-chief's doing (see we can agree on something.) Remember, the Dem's wanted to impeach him over the Russian Collusion, then obstruction.. all of the things Mueller was supposed to investigate and for the most part did. It's like the boy who cried wolf. And there is an opportunity to vote him out because he's alienated so many. THAT is precisely the correct course of action...again, in my opinion.
     
  19. B@ffled

    B@ffled Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2019
    Messages:
    1,567
    Likes Received:
    787
    To answer you: I don't know the reason of sending Giuliani. Do you? I'm sure more light will be shed on that in the weeks to come. Until then, we'd both be providing opinions.
     
  20. DaDakota

    DaDakota If you want to know, just ask!

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    123,886
    Likes Received:
    32,776
    The only way to get the truth is to JAIL those that obstruct justice and fail to appear - which is what the Republican's want.

    You have enough evidence to impeach, and more importantly show the country he is a corrupt President who is dangerous to our country, just before the 2020 elections.

    DD
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now