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.

Taylor came across as an arrogant, frustrated mid level bureocrat. I thought it was quite interesting how he presumed that HE (and his ilk) should be the main forces in policy, not the POTUS.

Deep state, right there.

Now we are getting to the point where we need to impeach Congress. Go to the site and watch the video.


Watch Live: House Holds Public Impeachment Hearings

Opening statements and first 45 minutes are over, a staff lawyer questioned Taylor and Kent for the Democrats for most of the time.  I think Kent did a good job of laying out the timeline of events since he became ambassador last Spring.  Apparently he took very detailed notes and was able to provide lots of direct quotes and details of every conversation.

The only thing that stood out as something I didn't expect was in Kents opening statement he testified that the the Prosecutor who Biden pressured Ukraine to fire had already closed the investigation into Burisma.

Will be interesting to see what Nunez and the GOP staffer focus on for the next 45 minutes.  They could attack the credibility of the witnesses some how, push their own narrative without actually questioning the witnesses much or focus on the actual process rather than substance.

---

Totally fair to criticize Obamas decision to not supply lethal aid.  But in 2015 he approved ~$200m in aid to help Ukraine defend themselves against the Russians.  They also sanctioned Russia and kicked them out of the G8 for invading Crimea. So I don't think it's fair to conclude that "democrats don’t actually care about Ukraine as an ally".  I think it's pretty clear that general view by both Democrats and Republicans is that helping out Ukraine is in the best interest of American National Security.

Also worth noting Nunez has mentioned twice now in the hearing that all the Democrats did was "give them blankets".

In 2014, the then President of Ukraine said: "Blankets and night vision goggles are important, but one cannot win a war with a blanket." https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/

The fact remains that Obama did not send lethal weapons to Ukraine and what they received did not allow their military to fight back against Russia. I believe this proves my point, regardless if it was “pillows and blankets” that were actually sent, it is the lack of lethal weapons.

This was just Trump being dramatic and then Gaetz straight up lying about US Ukraine relations under Obama  The US did not provide lethal aid to Ukraine under Obama, and the Republicans were not happy about that, but it's not like he just sent Pillows.

source

---

First hearing just started. Live Stream

It is ironic that Obama gave Pillows to Ukraine after Russia annexed Crimea. So democrats don’t actually care about Ukraine as an ally.

The impeachment rules passed by the house (on a partisan basis), gave Adam shift a defecto veto on any witnesses requests Republicans want to call. Shift has rejected all witness requests that Republicans have asked to call.

It is clear this is a sham process that has a predetermined outcome before any of the evidence even came out. The hearings should be moved to Salem, Mass.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/house-republicans-request-first-impeachment-witness-the-whistleblower

Republicans leading the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight committees on Wednesday sent a letter to Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff requesting the whistleblower testify in an open session as well as “all individuals he or she relied upon in formulating the complaint.”

Republicans wrote to the California Democrat that the whistleblower’s accusations have been contradicted by information the three panels have since gathered in closed-door impeachment testimony from several witnesses this month.

“In light of these inconsistencies between facts as alleged by the employee and information obtained during the so-called impeachment inquiry, the Committee ought to fully access the sources and credibility of the employee,” Republican Reps. Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, and Michael McCaul wrote to Schiff.

Trump Campaign Public-Impeachment-Hearing-Eve Email:

With elections coming in around a year from now, I don't think that impeachment sounds likely. Procedures would take long, and it is of course onlly in the interest of Democrats to pursue such matter. In the meantime though, both parties have to start paying attention to their presidential races. I'm positive that whatever official procedure for impeachment runs at the moment will sooner or later be abandoned or be met with a dead end as the official date for the 2020 election approaches.

I don't think he's relevant anymore.  He didn't listen to phone call first hand, someone else told him about it so he reported it.  We have the "transcript" that confirms his claim and several witnesses who actually listened to the phone call.  What could he possibly add?  Even if he was totally discredited, it wouldn't change the facts that have been established since his report was filed.

Identifying him would  only discourage federal employees from reporting something they think is wrong.  He'd be instantly hated by half the country, his entire life would be put under a national microscope, there would be death threats and harassment for him and his family.  Unlike public officials and politicians, that's not what he signed up for.  It's important for federal employees to feel they can report something they think is wrong without worrying about being dragged into the political arena.

So now the "Whistleblower" isn't going to be called to the stand?

Guess he had a lot to hide.

I totally misread that article about Jim Jordan.  He's being swapped with another congressman (Rick Crawford from Arkansas) for a regular seat on the Intelligence committee, not the chairmans seat.  I thought Jordan was already on the intelligence committee for some reason, oops.

This means Jordan will get 5 minutes to question each witness.  In past hearings several other congressmen have yielded their 5 minutes to Jordan, so I'm guessing that will happen a couple times also.

Most likely staff council will be doing the questioning for the first 45 minutes for each party.

I agree it was definitely a smart move to put Jordan on the council.  He is good at creating sound clips for conservative media to focus on and if there are any holes in a witnesses testimony he'll be very effective in pointing them out.


I don't think anyone really 'knows' what is going to happen in 2020, but yeah the 2020 election is definitely motivation for having these hearings.  If what they are alleging is true, and I believe at least some of them really do believe it's true, then I don't really see any other option than to hold the hearings.  Just letting it go because the election is in less than a year doesn't make sense when the allegations are that Trump is willing to abuse his power as president to influence the election.  It would be like thinking someones cheating at a game, and deciding to just keep playing instead of trying to have them disqualified because the championship was just around the corner



Drama is fine.  The hearings are shaping up to be pretty dramatic.  Just want to keep the thread clear of trolls and derails and hopefully attract some users who normally avoid threads like this that usually devolve into an unreadable mess.

This is a massive power move right here. Putting Jim Jordan (a massive Trump ally) in the hearings who has been proven to ask very intense questions is something that I support.

This does come from the fact that he is on the oversight committee though, and has been able to see a lot of this play out. We'll see!

This inquiry is a big sham by the Democrats as they’re using pressure techniques to remove Trump from the White House, because they’re well aware that they cannot beat him during next years elections. As many of you’ll know I have been a Trump supporter for quite a while, but I’m making these statements on logic rather than affection for Trump. The key turning point in my opinion will be when Trump shows the original transcript between him and Ukraine’s President as that’ll blow away all the claims put forth by the Democrats. @TwitchySeal I’ll be following this thread rigorously, while I liked the idea of strict discussions I hope you’ll allow some dramatic posts too.

Minority leader Kevin McCarthy announced that Jim Jordan is taking Devin Nunez' seat as ranking member of the intelligence committee.  That means it will be Jim Jordan that gets the 45 minutes to question each witness at the beginning of each hearing. 

Jordan has definitely been one of the most aggressive/confrontational members of the intelligence committee during past hearings, and Nunez not so much, so it seems likely that the Republicans are probably planning on him actually questioning the witnesses.  The Democrats will most likely be using a staff member with a lot of court room experience.

Well with all of your great reporting here I think it's fair to say that you're the authority on all things impeachment.

I'm not sure if I'm not keeping up with the news here, but I didn't know much about Bolton -- only the fact that they didn't include him in the subpoenas.

So yeah -- keep doing what you're doing, this is very interesting and I will continue to track this.

Yeah.  I expect the hearings to be super interesting, figured it would be nice to have a thread that's not a complete train wreck.


I also doubt the will call the vote by Christmas.  The last day the House is scheduled to be in Session is December 12th and they have the entire week of Thanksgiving off so there are only like 16 days left really.

I don't think it would be smart to let it drag on as long as possible though.  February is a huge month for Democratic primaries, and the closer they get to the next election the more valid the "lets just forget about it because the election is coming up" argument will be.  I also think there are some strategical advantages to finishing before Christmas, mostly because there will be a 3-4 weeks gap between the House Investigation and the Senate Trial where Americans will just home from work and discussing current events.

On the other hand, it seems like Bolton actually wants to testify, but is insisting on a judge ruling so that  he is shielded from any liability in breaching executive privilege, which could take weeks to months?  The House decided to drop the subpoena and not involve Bolton with the hearing so that it wouldn't drag on.  Then Boltons lawyer sent the house this letter.


Then he sent another letter that basically said "I know things that you guys don't know, and I think you'll want to hear them:


It's already established that Bolton was against the whole Ukraine investigating Biden campaign from the beginning.
“Giuliani’s a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up,”
“I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,”

So the question is, maybe let this drag on for several more weeks and likely (not definitely) have Bolton as a witness, or move more quickly without him.

Well just to start, unrelated to the topic, its nice to see the serious discussion tag present. I think if this is self moderated correctly you're going to be able to bring about some great conversation, I'll proably start using the same disclaimer on my post. So, thanks for that.

But back onto the topic:

This isn't going to end by Christmas. Even if the information present isn't enough to convince the American people that Trump is guility of a crime -- it makes the most sense for them to keep this up for as long as possible to continue to throw shit at the wall relating to Trump and hope that something latches on.

And if they do find something -- They're going to continue to poke and prod at it to try to find more. Because we don't know if the American people want to see the removal of a President right now -- even if he is 'guilty'

Will continue to post here once I watch the public hearings. Can't wait for this.

The public impeachment hearings start this week with one hearing on Wednesday and one on Friday.  It's going to be covered in full on pretty much every network and should be pretty easy to find a live stream.  They are hoping to wrap things up and call a vote to impeach by Christmas, but many expect it to take longer.

---

Wednesday, November 13

William Taylor
- West Point graduate, Vietnam Vet
- First appointed as Ambassador to Ukraine by GW Bush in 2006
- Appointed Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions by Obama in 2011
- Came out of retirement last Spring when Trump appointed him as Ambassador to Ukraine. (Currently Ambassador to Ukraine)
- Transcript from closed hearing


George Kent
- Appointed under Trump as Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs on September 4, 2018
- Has worked for the State Department since 1992
- Transcript from closed hearing

Friday, November 15

Marie Yovanovitch
- Appointed as US Ambassador to Ukraine by Obama in 2016
- Fired by Trump last Spring
- Transcript from closed hearing

(will update when more hearings are scheduled)

---

We don't know exactly what the Democrats plan to focus on or how the Republicans plan on defending them, but here are a few likely scenarios:

Allegations
- Trump leveraged foreign aid worth ~$450m (weapons), that Congress approved to provide to Ukraine as well as a White House visit to pressure Ukraine into publicly announcing they would be opening an investigation into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden (his most likely challenger in the 2020 election) as well as the role the Democrats played in meddling in the 2016 election..  Using the power of the President (federal foreign aid) to attack your political rivals is an impeachable offense.
- Trump used his personal lawyer, Rudy Giulliani, to circumvent the Senate confirmed State Department Officials and speak on behalf of the President and Country.  
- Trump obstructed the Democrats investigation into the Ukraine/Biden/Trump investigation.

Defense
- Trump did not withhold foreign aid/White House visit in exchange for publicly announcing a Biden investigation . (There was no "quid pro quo").  The withholding of funds were not related to his request for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
- Trump did withhold foreign aid, but it was justified because he wanted to make sure that the US Government wasn't sending foreign aid to a corrupt country.  It had nothing to do with the fact the Biden was in position to be his most likely general election challenger in 2020.  Asking Ukraine to investigate the Democrats involvement in the 2016 election was also not politically motivated, his only motivation was to secure future elections.
- Trump did withhold foreign aid for political reasons and was wrong for doing so, but that's not an impeachable offense.

---

The House voted on a resolution that laid out the rules for these hearings on Oct. 31.  It passed 232 - 196, (232 democrats voted yes, 2 democrats and 194 republicans voted no).

- The hearings will be conducted by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence led by Chairman Adam Schiff (d) and ranking member Devin Nunez.
- Schiff will be able to question each witness for 45 minutes straight, and then Nunez will do the same for another 45 minutes.
- All other members of the committee will then have 5 minutes to question the witness, alternating by Party.
- Each representative will be allowed to have a staff member question the witness instead of doing it themself.  
- The Republicans can subpoena or request witnesses only if the chairman approves.  The Republicans have had two witnesses rejected so far, Hunter Biden and the Anonymous whistle blower.

---

Local Rules:
- When you post, you must have a clear point. If you ramble on about nothing, then your post will be deleted.
- You must stay fairly close to the topic, the Public Impeachment Hearings.
- Don't be an asshole.  No personal attacks, name calling, tantrums, circular arguments.