President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

JRant

mcmoustache wrote: »

Pete just repeats the Trump point of the day which often contradicts tomorrow's point of the day. It's unfortunate that his nonsense is so easily pointed out but that's just how he is. It happens to a lot of people when they go full trump. You should never go full trump.


It's possible that you could do better than Pete. You shouldn't bind yourself to Pete's level - I think that you have it within you to be better than Pete.


You shouldn't be afraid of that, Spread your wings and fly - don't feel like you're in Pete's shadow.



Be your own man and have some balls.

As I said to the other member of the Squad, I'll pass on playing silly games.

People are entitled to have differing opinions but that level of discourse is not something I want to get engaged in.

Listening to the witnesses so far it is clear there is very little substance to the Dems claim. It's going to take a hell of a lot more that what we've seen to date to get rid of him this way.

osarusan

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's not how this works. It's not how any of this works.

There's a legal framework already in place for investigating US citizens getting up to shenanigans abroad. It's the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act and investigations can be run by the DOJ and the DOE. An off-the-books scheme cooked up by a president and his personal lawyer is not how these things are handled outside of Trumpland.

I agree with you on this, but if the off-the-books scheme cooked up by a president and his personal lawyer actually unearth some dodgy stuff by the Bidens, then it goes a long way to legitimising what Trump did, even if he went about it the wrong way.


Expect to see various partisan youtube and twitter hacks in the coming weeks 'expose' the Bidens' dealings in incredibly tenuous yet BOMBSHELL ways.

duploelabs

JRant wrote: »

Isn't this whole enquiry about finding the facts? Until then everything else is just opinion. Unless you know something the rest of us are not privy to?

Facts are underpinned by verified sources, something that is mainly lacking on one side of the debate

Penn

osarusan wrote: »

I agree with you on this, but if the off-the-books scheme cooked up by a president and his personal lawyer actually unearth some dodgy stuff by the Bidens, then it goes a long way to legitimising what Trump did, even if he went about it the wrong way.

I think both can be wrong for different reasons. Even if Trump uncovers something wrong by the Bidens, he absolutely must be held accountable for the manner in which he did so. Likewise, Biden & his son must then be held accountable for whatever illegal actions they undertook.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What are you on about?

You said Trump can't solicit something of value from a foreign government and I'm saying that is not what happened, it's just spin, a democrat talking point, little else.

You no doubt will say 'But it's of value to Trump if Biden is investigated as he's his political opponent' but that's purely incidental. As I said to you, if a president can be shown to have called for an unjust investigation into a political opponent, that's a different matter, as there would then be a case for suggesting the investigation was only being requested for personal gain, but as it stands now: there is NOTHING to suggest there wasn't sufficient grounds for asking Zelensky to look into the situation with the Bidens and Burisma.



Well, in a general sense, he had a point given that it was what Biden did when he withheld aid until a prosecutor was fired.

Can it be purely incidental that biden/UK/EU wanted rid of the corrupt prosecutor that just so happened to be investigating the company Hunter was on?

osarusan

Penn wrote: »

I think both can be wrong for different reasons. Even if Trump uncovers something wrong by the Bidens, he absolutely must be held accountable for the manner in which he did so. Likewise, Biden & his son must then be held accountable for whatever illegal actions they undertook.

Is the new 'wrong' that Trump would be guilty of still something that will carry weight as an impeachable offence?

alastair

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Can it be purely incidental that biden/UK/EU wanted rid of the corrupt prosecutor that just so happened to be investigating the company Hunter was on?

He wasn’t investigating the company. That’s why (amongst other inaction) they wanted him removed. He was failing to investigate corruption. The company was subsequently investigated and had to pay back taxes.

Penn

osarusan wrote: »

Is the new 'wrong' that Trump would be guilty of still something that will carry weight as an impeachable offence?

Yes. He was soliciting a foreign government to investigate a political opponent, and attempting to cover it up by using his personal lawyer and other non-government officials to carry out to bulk of it, and therefore outside of official channels. Certainly impeachable, regardless of whether or not an investigation into the Bidens turns up anything.

If all Trump wanted to was combat corruption in Ukraine, there was no need for Giuliani, and no need to mention Biden or Burisma. Trump wanted them specifically investigated because it would help him in the election, regardless of whether Biden was the Democratic nominee or not. If Biden was the nominee, great, Trump would have something to pin on him. If any other Dem was the nominee, great, Trump would do everything he could to link them with Biden (photos together, all Dems are crooked just like Biden etc).

Trump wanted dirt on Biden, and was using his power as President to help achieve it, while also going outside of governmental channels to carry it out. That's absolutely worth an impeachment inquiry regardless of what either of the Bidens did.

osarusan

Penn wrote: »

Yes. He was soliciting a foreign government to investigate a political opponent, and attempting to cover it up by using his personal lawyer and other non-government officials to carry out to bulk of it, and therefore outside of official channels. Certainly impeachable, regardless of whether or not an investigation into the Bidens turns up anything.

If all Trump wanted to was combat corruption in Ukraine, there was no need for Giuliani, and no need to mention Biden or Burisma. Trump wanted them specifically investigated because it would help him in the election, regardless of whether Biden was the Democratic nominee or not. If Biden was the nominee, great, Trump would have something to pin on him. If any other Dem was the nominee, great, Trump would do everything he could to link them with Biden (photos together, all Dems are crooked just like Biden etc).

Trump wanted dirt on Biden, and was using his power as President to help achieve it, while also going outside of governmental channels to carry it out. That's absolutely worth an impeachment inquiry regardless of what either of the Bidens did.

Certainly, this is what the Democrat argument will be, if any dirt on Biden turns up.

It doesn't strike me as anywhere near as strong an argument as the 'baseless smear' argument that they have been using so far.

I mean strong in terms of swaying public opinion enough that Republicans will see it as in their own best interests to impeach (or, far more likely, to pressure Trump to resign before any such vote).

duploelabs

osarusan wrote: »

Certainly, this is what the Democrat argument will be, if any dirt on Biden turns up.

It doesn't strike me as anywhere near as strong an argument as the 'baseless smear' argument that they have been using so far.

I mean strong in terms of swaying public opinion enough that Republicans will see it as in their own best interests to impeach (or, far more likely, to pressure Trump to resign before any such vote).

' if any dirt on Biden turns up'

You can be guilty of a crime even if you're not successful in achieving your goals

osarusan

duploelabs wrote: »

' if any dirt on Biden turns up'

You can be guilty of a crime even if you're not successful in achieving your goals

What do you mean?

Overheal

osarusan wrote: »

What do you mean?

While they don’t give Nobel Prizes for attempted chemistry, attempted murder is a crime. As is conspiracy to commit a felony.

SJW Lover

Overheal wrote: »

Disingenuous Pete is disingenuous.

No, Pete is bang on the money. Disingenuous would be hearing the ABC anchor talking about what she had on Epstein and Bill Clinton and deciding that there must be some footage prior to her comments that negate the black and white comments she is on camera making. Now that is completely disingenuous.

JRant

duploelabs wrote: »

Facts are underpinned by verified sources, something that is mainly lacking on one side of the debate

Unfortunately it is severely lacking on both sides and this whole thing is a complete farce. We actually had witnesses give 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of what they believe happened. On the other side we've had the "yeah but Hillary" nonsense.

If nothing else this has given us an incredible quote for the ages though "hearsay can be much better evidence than direct" from Quigley.

Overheal

JRant wrote: »

Unfortunately it is severely lacking on both sides and this whole thing is a complete farce. We actually had witnesses give 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of what they believe happened. On the other side we've had the "yeah but Hillary" nonsense.

In addition to answering questions on matters which they didn’t have first hand knowledge of the witnesses did speak to several matters they did have firsthand knowledge including their direct involvement in the efforts to make aid conditioned on a deliverable, like Bill Taylor’s texts, and conversations with Sondland and others regarding aid being conditioned on The Deliverable.

That Kent for example gave 3rd hand accounts of phone calls from Kyiv with the President for example, the point is that won’t be where the buck stops: Kent has named people who have more direct knowledge than he does. Those people will be invited to testify, and so we will have more and more firsthand accounts. We would have more firsthand accounts and direct evidence but the White House refuses to cooperate and has ordered individuals with direct information to not testify.

mcmoustache

Sondland will have first hand info and he'll be testifying soon. There has only been one day of public hearings so far so it's a bit early to be making sweeping judgements on these hearings.

Overheal

Speak of the devil that very person, David Holmes, will be deposed this afternoon to speak to Kent’s testimony regarding follow-on call from Trump to track status of Deliverable he overheard in Kyiv/wherever they were in Ukraine and recently reported to Kent about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/impeachment-hearings-live-updates/2019/11/15/c4b9f0f4-0726-11ea-8292-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html

duploelabs

Just to point out that we haven't had any first hand testimony (yet) as trump has blocked any first handers from doing so, hence the Bolton case the other day

Penn

It's also important to schedule the ones making the testimonies correctly. Working from the bottom up (eg. those furthest away from what happened) means those closer to events already know people have testified saying (X did this, X said that, We spoke about it on this date etc), which means it's harder to lie or feign ignorance.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Some of the GOP were making out the STAR witnesses were Kent and Taylor and that was based on hearsay not allowing for the ones that will follow to corroborate what was said. They're star witnesses along with vindman for the service they've given to the US, Taylor for the notes he kept personally also.
The key witnesses are sondland/vindman and if they can get him mulvaney.

Overheal

And Trump

Will have to watch Yovanovitch testimony on delay later.

osarusan

Overheal wrote: »

While they don’t give Nobel Prizes for attempted chemistry, attempted murder is a crime. As is conspiracy to commit a felony.

I still don't understand the point tbh.

If no dirt on the Bidens turns up, it makes things worse for Trump, because it helps the argument that it was nothing other than a smear.

If some dirt does turn up, it strengthens his argument that the concept of investigating them was sound, even if the means was all wrong.

Penn

osarusan wrote: »

I still don't understand the point tbh.

If no dirt on the Bidens turns up, it makes things worse for Trump, because it helps the argument that it was nothing other than a smear.

If some dirt does turn up, it strengthens his argument that the concept of investigating them was sound, even if the means was all wrong.

You're right. He may be okay on the concept of investigating them if something turns up. But it's clear the reason why he specifically did this to the Ukraine, why he went around standard governmental procedure by using Giuliani, and why he tried to conceal it all, is because his reason wasn't corruption in Ukraine, it was targeting a political opponent.

Look at it this way; say an FBI agent really hates someone. They use the tools at their disposal as an FBI agent to target that person, finds, say an outstanding warrant for not paying a fine or something, alerts the local authorities and that person gets a much bigger fine. That FBI agent may have found something legitimately incriminating against that person, but the reasons why he targeted them and his methodology for finding it out was a substantial abuse of power and if discovered, he'd likely be fired over it.

Now imagine that FBI agent is the President.

osarusan

Penn wrote: »

You're right. He may be okay on the concept of investigating them if something turns up. But it's clear the reason why he specifically did this to the Ukraine, why he went around standard governmental procedure by using Giuliani, and why he tried to conceal it all, is because his reason wasn't corruption in Ukraine, it was targeting a political opponent.

Again, I agree with you. But I'm not looking at it from the perspective of what we all know to be what really happened, I'm looking at it from the perspective of what Trump can offer as an alternative version of events, and what he can't.

What I'm wondering is what would need to happen for public opinion to sway against him so badly that Republicans to decide the best course of action is to pressure Trump to resign.

Dirt on the Bidens, no matter how it was uncovered, would make that a lot less likely to happen in my opinion.

Overheal

osarusan wrote: »

Again, I agree with you. But I'm not looking at it from the perspective of what we all know to be what really happened, I'm looking at it from the perspective of what Trump can make a defence against, and what he can't.

What I'm wondering is what would need to happen for public opinion to sway against him so badly that Republicans to decide the best course of action is to pressure Trump to resign.

Dirt on the Bidens, no matter how it was uncovered, would make that a lot less likely to happen in my opinion.

Precisely why one half of these hearings is badgering witnesses about whether Hunter speaks Ukrainian etc. rather than taking the time to go investigate that all separately and apolitically. It hinges on them convincing the public that the Biden conspiracy is at least a legitimate concern, whether or not it is tangible. To me and hopefully most Americans though it doesn’t justify the nakedly unethical way Trump went about it based on the findings thus far.

Overheal

Side note here’s some refreshingly good news out of Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/new-trump-rule-to-make-more-health-care-rates-public/2019/11/15/4733c222-0721-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html

Hospital and medical expenses information will be more accessible to patients in theory.

Edit whoops this isn’t the Politics megathread /off-topic

Outlaw Pete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvEfW2eUCM

Overheal

Thanks Pete; I much prefer CPSAN over any cable feed that can plaster everything with spin and chyrons and digital vomit

JRant

Overheal wrote: »

Thanks Pete; I much prefer CPSAN over any cable feed that can plaster everything with spin and chyrons and digital vomit

Absolutely, the words speak for themselves and we don't need an army of talking heads to interpret them.

Cody montana

duploelabs wrote: »

Just to point out that we haven't had any first hand testimony (yet) as trump has blocked any first handers from doing so, hence the Bolton case the other day

He tried to block everyone.