Impeachment live hearing thread Nov 13-21 2019

Seems pretty obvious why, especially with the testimony and transcripts we have....

Can you even ponder any legitimate reason why Giuliani (Trump’s private lawyer) was sent instead of creating a transparent investigation into Biden?

That’s fine if you want to hide behind obfuscation and don’t want to ponder why Trump took the actions he did... but don’t expect me to play dumb too.

 

Harder to walk through a timeline to show motive, especially when many of the principle players refuse to testify or turn over documents. If Trump's assertion is that he was legitimately trying to solve a problem of corruption in Ukraine and of Ukrainian meddling in US elections, I think it is useful to think about how such a pursuit would be expected to go and compare that to what he actually did.

Ukraine is allegedly rife with corruption. If we're worried about where our money goes, I'd expect we would ask for a systemic approach that addresses all corruption that could impact our aid. Instead, Trump focused on this one corruption case of Burisma.

But the concern, Trump says, is how Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor Shokin for investigating Burisma which could have put Hunter Biden in the crosshairs. That would deserve special attention, but all other reporting says Biden got Shokin fired for NOT investigating. (Maybe the Illuminati got me, so if anyone has credible reporting that shows Trump's version is true, I'd love to see that.) So, if Trump was pursuing a genuine case of particular importance to the US, why does he tell a lie about how the Shokin thing went down?

If Trump was right about Biden and Shokin, I would expect the FBI and potentially the CIA would conduct an investigation (and maybe they are). I would expect he might ask the president of Ukraine for cooperation with the ongoing investigation. And he does ask Zelensky to coordinate with Barr. But, why does he insist on a public announcement of the investigation? Aren't these investigations more successful when you do them on the down-low? Wouldn't it be enough to show Ukrainian good faith if they share documents, provide witnesses, and do other investigatory cooperation stuff? Did Barr or Giuliani even ask for them to do any of these operational things or did they only work on the announcement?

Crowdstrike is the vendor that did the forensics to conclude that Russia was responsible for the DNC hacks. Is our president crazy, stupid, or evil to actually ask a foreign head of state to seriously investigate a completely made-up (by Russian intel btw) conspiracy theory about an American company? If somehow it was all true, has the FBI executed any search warrants at the Crowdstrike office in California? Wouldn't that be a good place to start? Have they done anything on a real domestic investigation?

If the intent was not to damage a political opponent, for the sake of avoiding any appearance of impropriety, shouldn't Trump want to take a hands-off approach and let Christopher Wray handle it as an autonomous FBI Chief? You know, so nobody accuses him of just trying to damage a political opponent?

If the announcement they tried to get Zelensky to make was ever made, would that statement have included the fact that the investigation would be done in cooperation with the DOJ, or would he conveniently omit that fact and pretend like it was a totally homegrown effort?

If Trump was pursuing a legitimate national interest, why would he have his personal attorney who does not work for the government in any capacity run this parallel track and not use the organs of diplomacy that are already in place? Couldn't Trump just explain to the existing personnel how important it is to the national interest and then just have them go at it?

If Trump is pursuing a legitimate national interest, why did he make selective edits to the transcript of the call he released? Why did they hide the call transcript on a top secret database? Why does he block all Admin officials from testifying? Why does he go after the whistleblower? (Yeah, yeah, witch hunt.) Wouldn't this be a great opportunity to explain to the American people (without lying) what he believes the Bidens, Crowdstrike and the rest have done, why it is important to our national interest to investigate it, and why all the actions he's taken here have been justified? He's thrown out tidbits here and there, but despite being under severe and public attack, no where has anyone with the White House been able to offer a complete and cogent explanation (if anyone has one hit me up).

TLDR (too late!), it's not the case that's weak, it's Trump's explanations for all the bizarre and shady-looking stuff he's done. If we are to believe that Trump's motives were pure, shouldn't he be able to tell us why he's done what he's done?

 

@B@ffled

You recognize there is a real possibility of abuse of power. That recognition must exist at least in part because of objective indicia presented. I would suggest that you set aside your political views and look at it clinically.... Failing to investigate and commence impeachment proceedings -- in light of the objective factors that I cited -- would be a complete dereliction of duty by the House. Stated differently, if the House were Republican controlled, a failure to proceed would be a complete failure of government. It would represent ignoring objectively credible sources of concern and burying it in the name of protecting the party.

One cannot recognize the possibility of abuse of power based on objective indicia, and simultaneously say that the impeachment process is purely bullcrap political stunt and shouldn't be happening at all. The impeachment process is not only appropriate, it is required. You may not like it, you may think it's all for naught, but it is required.

You can say that you don't support a finding of impeachment based on the evidence. That's your call based on your lens of the world. I happen to think that completely ignores the overwhelming weight of the evidence and would require a suspension of reality. But you literally cannot say that there shouldn't be an impeachment process going on right now.

If your view is that this is all pointless because the Senate won't remove the dumbass-in-chief from office, that's on the Senate.

(Lastly, Muller doesn't have a thing to do with these facts and these allegations. I know you know it doesn't; you're just tired of the left. I'd just say keep it intellectually honest as much as one can.).

 

You're being too obvious.

@justtxyank

 

I think this is an important topic as well. In criminal cases, we figure (in theory) the harm of imprisoning an innocent man is greater than that of letting a guilty man go free, so we try to have a high degree of certainty. It's a big deal. Is removing a president a big deal though? Yes, the president is the choice of the electorate. But, removing the president doesn't really undo the election. No more than an untimely death undoes an election. The Vice President, his handpicked man in the same party, takes his spot. If the president chose wisely, he can pick up the torch.

So, what really is the greater harm -- removing a president who did no wrong or leaving a criminal in the Oval Office? Imo, taking the risk that your President might be corrupt is by far the greater harm. I would sooner see 10 innocent presidents kicked to the curb than see one crook in office. A crook can do a ton of damage with that much power. That's why I had supported and still support the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I favored impeachment of GWB for torture. And I support booting Trump for innumerable offenses. If we're ever wrong in an impeachment, it's alright because there's always another guy ready to take a crack at it.

Of course, we don't want cynical charges used as political weapons against presidents. That creates volatility. You need to have a threshold that puts high crimes sufficiently high and you need a burden of proof that is meaningful to achieve. But, it shouldn't be "beyond reasonable doubt," a smoking gun, or insurmountable evidence. That puts the country at far too much risk from crooked presidents. I'd suggest a standard of the 'preponderance of evidence.' 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is far too high a bar to require -- we're talking about your mandate to do a job, not your life, liberty or property.

 

This is the type of action I'm looking for...lol. My wife won't engage, so thanks for indulging me. I'd like to respond to some of the items you bring up but before I do, you brought up a point that lands with me. That is - why was it necessary that Zelensky announce to publicly? This is an aha... because according to what I heard yesterday during the hearings, it was not important if they actually followed through. It was important that he announced it. So, some evidence that can sway me there. Again, I'll let it play out but great point.


If Trump was right about Biden and Shokin, I would expect the FBI and potentially the CIA would conduct an investigation (and maybe they are). I would expect he might ask the president of Ukraine for cooperation with the ongoing investigation. And he does ask Zelensky to coordinate with Barr. But, why does he insist on a public announcement of the investigation? Aren't these investigations more successful when you do them on the down-low? Wouldn't it be enough to show Ukrainian good faith if they share documents, provide witnesses, and do other investigatory cooperation stuff? Did Barr or Giuliani even ask for them to do any of these operational things or did they only work on the announcement?

There is no way on earth Trump would or could go to the FBI or CIA after what went down with Comey, McCabe & Mueller. All signs point to some serious abuses with the FISA thing. Again, there's an investigation into it hopefully that debunks the 'conspiracy theory' or collaborates it. But I think it's pretty clear that Trump believes it, which is why he would not trust them for anything. Which is F-ing nuts because those two institutions are supposed to be non-partisan and unflappable.

Crowdstrike is the vendor that did the forensics to conclude that Russia was responsible for the DNC hacks. Is our president crazy, stupid, or evil to actually ask a foreign head of state to seriously investigate a completely made-up (by Russian intel btw) conspiracy theory about an American company? If somehow it was all true, has the FBI executed any search warrants at the Crowdstrike office in California? Wouldn't that be a good place to start? Have they done anything on a real domestic investigation?

Don't know. I don't really see the harm in asking. If he simply asked to investigate that, there wouldn't be this impeachment inquiry. Or at least I hope not.

If the intent was not to damage a political opponent, for the sake of avoiding any appearance of impropriety, shouldn't Trump want to take a hands-off approach and let Christopher Wray handle it as an autonomous FBI Chief? You know, so nobody accuses him of just trying to damage a political opponent?

Again, no way he trusts the FBI.

If Trump was pursuing a legitimate national interest, why would he have his personal attorney who does not work for the government in any capacity run this parallel track and not use the organs of diplomacy that are already in place? Couldn't Trump just explain to the existing personnel how important it is to the national interest and then just have them go at it?

I think it goes back to trust again. I know, I know... it's a broken record.

If Trump is pursuing a legitimate national interest, why did he make selective edits to the transcript of the call he released? Why did they hide the call transcript on a top secret database? Why does he block all Admin officials from testifying? Why does he go after the whistleblower? (Yeah, yeah, witch hunt.) Wouldn't this be a great opportunity to explain to the American people (without lying) what he believes the Bidens, Crowdstrike and the rest have done, why it is important to our national interest to investigate it, and why all the actions he's taken here have been justified? He's thrown out tidbits here and there, but despite being under severe and public attack, no where has anyone with the White House been able to offer a complete and cogent explanation (if anyone has one hit me up).

The Lt. Col. on the call explained the edits as being nothing of consequence. They've given the excuse that they hid the transcript because of the leaks in the past, but more importantly there's been recent testimony that the NSC lawyers were concerned about the impropriety about asking Zelensky to investigate. Yeah, I know this is the backbone of what the impeachment argument is about. I still see it as an improper thing to do, not as a removable offense.

TLDR (too late!), it's not the case that's weak, it's Trump's explanations for all the bizarre and shady-looking stuff he's done. If we are to believe that Trump's motives were pure, shouldn't he be able to tell us why he's done what he's done?

This dude can't piece together a cohesive statement. I think he's tried to explain his motives but the explanation comes off sounding like a nut job. His tweets are just... I don't know what to say... We all know what they are. His mouthpiece, Fox News, Sean Hannity in particular stumps for him every night trying to explain. But it's hard to take him seriously. I can't. I can't take any of the cable and mainstream network actors seriously and it pisses me off that the media has sunk to taking sides. At least the local news gives me facts. The only thing I'm pissed at them for is letting Jenn Renya go.

But I'll defer back to the Fox/Repub talking point that he can't tell you because so far he has not been afforded due process and until he is, I don't blame him for refusing to participate.

Again, you made a helluva point that does make me slow my roll. I'd like to know the answer to that. However, I don't think it moves the bar for me as an offense so egregious that he has to be removed from office. I guess I have a different threshold regarding removing a president.

I'm headed outta town to lose money in Louisiana. My lack of response doesn't mean I'm a troll and I sincerely enjoyed the dialogue, especially when it's coherent and the emotion is set aside.

 

But see.... throwing around impeachment so casually devalues the gravity of it. And you're giving congress an unfair balance of power to remove a president elected by the people.

 

You might need to brush up on your civics class.
Congress was always suppose to be the stronger branch.

Also Congress is elected by the people.

 

I don't know what this means. Am I being insulted...lol?

 

There is an answer to this conundrum and "poof" the issue is resolved.

 

What’s so casual about this? The president is accused of abusing his power by using the government to go against political opponents....

 

This as well.

 

You're being too obvious.

@justtxyank[/QUOTE]
Bears repeating.

 

So Trump can’t trust the FBI, CIA, or any transparent process so he has to use own personal attorney....?

So we can’t trust anything our intelligence agencies are saying then?

 

The guy is not sincere. He has stated things that are debunked and false as if they are true in his arguments. He claims to be independent and not a Trump supporter. He's asked for evidence, given evidence, and then dismisses it, doesn't address it, or ignores it.

He spouts debunked crap about the FISA warrants which were issued and renewed by Federal judges and aren't really suspect at all as an example. He is either an alt account or working at the behest of someone else. Either way, it isn't worth wasting your time talking to him. I understand the urge to have someone to engage in a real issue-oriented discussion, but that guy isn't it. We should all just ignore him, and get him to go away.

 

Oh I know. He stopped responding to me and probably won’t. Doesn’t mean I have to stop making my points!

 

I understand. It's just he doesn't recognize those facts, and those of us that do, aren't disagreeing with you.

 

It's not Trump's fault he inherited a country of losers. Just look at the shithole House he stays in and people have the gall to complain about his trips to Florida.

 

I watched the entire thing. There's a benefit to being retired, apparently. The two deeply experienced foreign service officers, both of whom served in the military, gave highly credible testimony, testimony utterly damning to Mr trump. The Republican response was embarrassing, as in embarrassingly awful, incoherent, all over the map, with a "counsel" asking most of the questions during the 45 minutes given the GOP being a complete joke. Sadly, the response here by the usual "trump defenders" was what I expected. They persist in ignoring the evidence.

I look forward to seeing more testimony. This is fascinating.

 

I responded to @Rileydog and @JuanValdez and I thought I did so in a respectful manner because they brought up excellent points and it was dialogue I thought was interesting. I conceded a point regarding the purpose of making Zelensky announce the investigations publicly. I think this is a hole in the GOP's defense.

You say I'm spouting debunked crap. Look at what you're saying. It's literally line of talking points that you've heard on TV. I called you out on that because most of your posts are thought through and you usually don't attack. You don't seem to be driven by emotion. I must have hit a nerve, caught you on a bad day or perhaps you're just tired of arguing with people who don't see it the same way as you. I get that. Attack me if you want or ignore me if you want.

Is the FISA warrant really debunked? I disagree. There is a current investigation regarding this. For the record, I never claimed to be independent. I'm just not a Trump supporter. And the evidence I'm asking for, I'm asking for it to be produced by the Dems in the Inquiry. The 'evidence' being presented to me here has not been compelling enough for me to change my position. But I am willing to concede that maybe I do have it wrong and the inquiry will change my position.

It's not surprising that I'll catch some **** for my opinions because they differ from the majority on this board. And I get that because I started posting last night you guys think I'm a troll...whatever you want to define that as. The truth is I did have an account a long time ago and rarely posted. I don't recall what my user name was but I've had the same email account for the last 20 plus years. For some reason I wasn't able to resurrect my account under whatever the user name was. I can assure you I wasn't banned. If a mod would like to help find the form user name that would be great. I highly doubt I had enough posts for anyone to notice and am sure I never attacked anyone on this or any other forum board.

Why suggest that the board ban me? Simply don't respond to my post. That's easy enough. Or if you're that ate up, I'll refrain from posting... just for you. Are we really living in a climate that when we don't agree with someone we call for them to be banned or 'made to leave'? Am I being cyberbullied and don't even know it....lol?