Topic: Trump Impeachment Public Hearings [serious discussion] (Read 267 times)

Sorry guys, I fucked up and forgot to make this thread self-moderated.  I worry it will get derailed and turn into a shit show, so I'm going to lock this topic.  New thread here

Good for you. My analysis of your statement is that you are creating false equivalence in specific places where none exists using broad generalizations. What I am arguing is throwing your hands up and saying "what are you gonna do, this is what they all do, oh well lets excuse it again!" is not a logical position to take. Additionally, you aren't talking about an impeachment proceeding, which is a very big difference.
[/quote]

I'm not saying that it's okay, I'm just saying that's the way that it is. It's not an excuse on my part here, it's just the reality we live in.

Do we want to change things? Yes. We have to elect the correct people for these things to change and these people may not be in the (R) or (D) category.

I don't understand why you're trying to pick a fight here. There's no reason for that.

What are you even arguing here?

All I'm saying that that is what the parties do. They change the rules when it benefits them. Both parties do it, and nothing changes. Do you even understand what I originally said?[/quote]

Good for you. My analysis of your statement is that you are creating false equivalence in specific places where none exists using broad generalizations. What I am arguing is throwing your hands up and saying "what are you gonna do, this is what they all do, oh well lets excuse it again!" is not a logical position to take. Additionally, you aren't talking about an impeachment proceeding, which is a very big difference.

What are you even arguing here?

All I'm saying that that is what the parties do. They change the rules when it benefits them. Both parties do it, and nothing changes. Do you even understand what I originally said?

Was that an impeachment investigation? I like how you are simultaneously arguing its ok to change the rules when it is "your turn" while pointing fingers at people changing the rules at the same time. No double think there at all.

Honestly not a bad point. Does not make much sense to pick an arbitrary date to release the funds.

What would've been massively suspicious is if they released the funds an hour or two after the announcement of the investigation.

But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems had some advance knowledge of when money was going to be released. But then again, that would have to be proved to be legitimate -- and as of right now we see no evidence of that. Republicans in the senate have the power to subpoena and can use it.....


Well yeah, this is how the party system works. They're happy when its them abusing the power, but once it flips to the other side they scream bloody murder but don't actually change anything. Both sides get to benefit when they're the winners.

In 2015, when the Republicans controlled the House and were investigating Obama, they changed the rules on issuing subpoenas and voted to give the Chairman final say on every subpoena.  At the time the Democrats screamed bloody murder, called it McCarthyism etc.  Now of course they are cool with it and it's the Republicans having a tantrum.  It was the same for Bush and Clinton.  There is no such thing as an investigation into the president where the presidents allies don't say some variation of all the same things Republicans are saying today.

I really don't think Trump blocking all his witnesses have anything to do with the 'procedure'.  The White House already stated that the only way they would cooperate was if the entire impeachment inquiry was cancelled 

Also, if Trump is innocent, and there are E mails and documents or other evidence that would prove this, then he's only hurting himself politically by refusing to cooperate. 

Sure, consider it. If the Dems had just used standard parliamentary procedure, equal rights to counter a witness, they wouldn't be dealing with this block.

Listening to Rush Limbaugh a bit today, he was essentially telling Pelosi to give this up, saying it's already looking bad for the Dems.

I agree but for differing reasons. The impression I got was really one of Deep State Wants To Run Things. So what's going on? After arguing there was no deep state for several years, now the Dems have embraced it?

That's a fair point.  I hadn't considered that scenario.


Trump has blocked the release of all documents and testimonies of his inner circle, which weakens the "there are no emails, documents or testimonies from high ranking officials that prove Trump did something bad" argument. I'm not saying it proves anything one way or another, but it's definitely something to consider.

Or the Dems knew the upcoming date of funds release, and scheduled their announcement two days prior. Knowing they'd have no "case" in two days.

Emails or other communications showing a chain of causation, show a chain of causation.

Two dates do not.

I guess my point is that if Trump were only interested in the eventual outcome of an investigation involving the Bidens, why would he want a public announcement from the President of Ukraine.  Why not just ask them to investigate it without requiring a public announcement?   I can't think of any scenario where the public announcement would help the investigation.  If anything, the default for investigators is to prevent whoever they're investigating from knowing about the investigation as long as possible.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that if Ukraine made the public announcement, it would damage Bidens reputation.  It's also pretty safe to assume that Trump and the Republicans would use it as a talking point for the duration of the campaign.  That's why I think that if he asked for a public announcement, which is what is being claimed in the testimony, then it would serve as some pretty solid evidence on Trumps intent.







Yeah, it's possible that it was just a coincidence that after 2 months of withholding the money, they decided to release it 2 days after realizing the whole thing was likely to be investigated by Congress.  There is going to be a ton of evidence that doesn't prove something 100% did or did not happen.  It doesn't mean we should just ignore it.

If the money had been released a week earlier, when the only potential motivation was to help Ukraine, the GOPs "the money was released, Ukraine didn't investigate, end of story" defense would be solid.  But it wasn't.

Does not change what I said one bit.

This is neither fair nor accurate. There are all sorts of things that affect something like, "when the money was released." You are trying to impute cause and effect in a sequence of events.

It doesn't work that way - just because one event happened after another does not imply one caused the other. They can both have independent chains of causation, and that's quite common.

Well yes. The Dems did a VERY good job combating that line of thought, by saying that the money was only released AFTER the house had begun their investigation.

I think the timeline is as follows:

House begins the investigation into the President - Sep 9th
Money is released - Sep 11th

If Trump had released this money the 5th or something along those lines, this would've been a different story. Not totally cleared, but at least the Republicans could've fought on that front.

It's already been confirmed by multiple people under oath, most of them career staffers with decades of experience without any sort of political past or scandal.
Also, Trump has instructed his advisors and State department to ignore subpoenas and refuse to cooperate with the investigation.  The State Dept has tons of documents turned over by the 2 witnesses today, for example, and none of them have been given to congress.

 It seems pretty unlikely to me that that everyone that has shown up for the hearings are lying and the White House is refusing to allow anyone from the Presidents staff to explain what really happened under oath.

I do think that "they're all lying" is a much more valid defense than some of the ones that were used today.  Especially the "the money was released, and Ukraine didn't open the investigation, nothing else matters, end of story" defense.

According to testimony, is the key portion here. I'm not going to believe such into I see it written somewhere, confirmed by multiple people, in a phone call, text, etc -- from Trump or one of the advisers around him.

I think that's pretty fair -- I don't think it's fair to believe hearsay

He didn't just ask them to look into it though, he asked the Pres of Ukraine to hold a press conference and announce that they were opening the investigation.  (according to testimony)

I actually don't agree that Trump asking for a look into Biden's son constitutes "asking about dirt on the opponent."

There could have been any number of things going on behind the scenes that would make a plausible and sensible explanation for setting the son on the Board of Burisma.

In the absence of those explanations or any serious explanation (eg. "We can't tell you- it's a national security matter") then yes, the suspicion of dirt certainly does exist and is not going away.

You're right.  Obama basically did the same thing with the $1b loan condition of firing the prosecutor.  I'm sure there are other examples also.  I think it's up for debate on where the line is on what's legal and not legal when it comes to a President messing with funds that Congress approved to go somewhere since the constitution gives Congress the sole "power of the purse"



There were probably 12 different ones like that.  I just thought the official "Impeachment Defense" card was funny.

I'm going to assume that the Dems ran an email blast similar to this, talking about how the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS SELLING THE NATION FOREIGN POLICY OUT FOR HIS OWN CAMPAIGN

If anyone has that, would be cool to post it here.



I do think there might be precedent on withholding money though -- obviously temporarily. I feel like I read it somewhere that other Presidents have done similar things (obviously not in regards to the portion about asking about dirt on their opponent) with withholding of funds.

Trump appointed Taylor as acting US ambassador to Ukraine (at the recommendation of Pompeo).  Taylor agreed under the condition that the general US policy towards Ukraine, especially when it comes to helping them defend themselves from Russia, did not change. (I assume this was because Trump previously mentioned the possibility of recognizing Crimea as part of Russia).

The main force in foreign policy is not the presidents alone.  Congress is very involved. The Senate confirms Ambassadors* and the House decides where money should go based on information from the Ambassadors that the President appoints.

*Taylor hasn't been confirmed as he is officially the "Acting Ambassador to Ukraine" since the previous Ambassador (who is testifying on friday) was fired suddenly.