Topic: US Politics [serious discussion - please read OP before posting] - page 6. (Read 5783 times)

Naw. The way the game was played by the liberal team so far reeks of incompetence. That's not what the Trump/McConnell team is.

Look, I think we can agree that a positive result of the Senate squashing this road kill of an impeachment is no public inquiry into Biden - at least for the time being. Because as noted, Biden down, Bernie up. So now the old fat white power brokers in the back room can push their guy, Biden, and backup billionaire. Because they are rich guys, rich on industries Bernie wants to dig into. They won't allow that.

Personally I'm for taking whatever is criminal totally out of the political sphere and letting Bill Barr go at it/them. I don't know if that includes Hunter Biden, my guess is no.

I think there's proof of payments.  But Biden and Archer were running a private equity firm.  They were accepting investments from all over the place.  Yeah, it's shady, but the way they are dividing a few payments (which were likely deposits), by however many months he was on the board, and then implying it was actually a salary going straight to his pocket is also shady.  



Shoken was basically working for Russia.  He was only prosecuting people who protested in favor of Ukrainian independence and protecting those who were in support of Yanukovych (Ukrainian President who received billions in bribes from Russia while he was in office, Ukraine flipped out when he decided not to sign the agreement to join the EU - which obviously Putin would've hated to happen).

Probably the most well known shitty thing he did was block the prosecution of the pro-Russia shooters who killed a bunch of protestors . (I think it was called the Maiden Massacre).

There's also news articles from 2015-16, it was very clear that the guy was corrupt, and those who wanted Ukraine to be independent wanted him gone.  I haven't seen Biden mentioned anywhere.
Remember, all of this went down within a year or two of Ukraine literally overthrowing their corrupt president who was in Putins pocket.  

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190
https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/media-prosecutor-general-shokin-submits-resignation-408228.html?cn-reloaded=1
https://en.odfoundation.eu/a/6016%2Cstop-the-appointment-of-shokin
https://www.unian.info/society/1170127-auto-maidan-protesters-arrived-at-poroshenkos-residence-demanding-shokins-resignation-photos.html



tldr;
Hunter shady?  Yeah, probably.
But it seems like Joe Biden was probably exaggerating the roll he played in Shokin getting the boot.
And it seems pretty unlikely that his son had anything to do with Shokin getting the boot.

They don't need anything. All they need is the appearance of something and that's exactly what this has all been about.

Besides getting paid a stupid amount every month, Hunter is also being accused of getting some huge amount of money. The "proof" however, despite having specifics on all transactions up until that point, has none for the payments that are supposed to have gone to Hunter. But anyone that believes in conspiracies will believe it was a big payment. They want to believe that.. So, they just need the appearance.

There was a variety of things about the Shoken stuff that bothered me for a long time.. Then I finally realized what it was and other things seemed to come together. Why did they think Shoken was corrupt and yet why has there been no "proof". Even just some rough statement. Granted he apparently didn't do anything.. to anyone.. in all his time.. but we'll ignore that.

He made the statement that he was told to use "white gloves" with the Burisma investigation. He stated he took that to mean he needed to be hands off. i.e. "protect" Biden and his son. I finally realized why that seemed off to me. It's because that phrase means the opposite of what he thought it did. He was told by the US guy to actually do a very thorough and competent job. That's what it means. Now maybe in their culture it's something different. Or it's a phrase uncommon to them and because he lives in a society where everyone is corrupt he assumed the Bidens were as well and that he was being told to look the other way. The end results is that he did nothing. So from that, it's stands to reason that the US would then think he was corrupt since he wasn't doing the investigation they had told him to do a thorough job of.

When fired, he says he was told it was because Biden had told the President that they had proof he was corrupt. I suspect it's more that since Shoken had been told to do a thorough job yet did nothing, they assumed he was corrupt. The President may or may not have said that to Shoken but even if he did he could also have simply misinterpreted or, as many do, was casting blame elsewhere so it would not fall on him.

Given that one misunderstanding, I can see how it all could have played out the way it did. Of course maybe there was evidence he was corrupt but I've never heard anything that indicates there is.

Regardless, as it stands it makes for a good way to smear the Bidens. I doubt they really want it looked into as it could end up clearing them and that doesn't suit there purposes right now. Everything is currently nice and murky and perfect for the job they want done.

I find it hard to believe they (Trump, not Congress) haven't been putting some serious effort into investigating the Bidens and the DNC.  It's possible they already have something and are saving it for later.  Also possible they have nothing and it goes the way of all the other democrat investigations he got everyone all fired up about that just fizzled out.

Trump will continue and now Lindsey is saying they're going to do a bunch of stuff. But then again he's been saying that for awhile so who knows why he's saying it now.

Well, that's not EXACTLY accurate.

The shutdown of the never-ending-parade this-time-around "Impeachment" does save Biden face, no dragging Hunter in etc. Leaves Biden in the running,doesn't it?

Some yes. But most are simply mad at Washington, both sides, and want someone to be their spokesperson and do what's right for them. It's a result of the increasing wealth disparity. There are studies for example that show clearly that as the gap widens, things like violence increases in a society. And Trump spoke to what the masses thought needed to change and promised them what they wanted even though he's really ineffective. He has the power to mobilize his supporters and instead he cries about how everyone attacks him and he attacks the media. He only cares about himself and having his base idolize him. Doesn't matter if it's the right thing to do or not, as long as it's what they want, he'll do it so he gets those cheers at the rallies and gets voted in again.

Bernie is the Trump of the left and "he" scares me more than Trump does. Bernie isn't a bumbling buffoon. He knows he has power in his supporters, he knows how to use it and he knows he will need to. I think Bernie is milk toast though.. he's ideological.. Most of his supporters hear "socialist" and think social programs. But his far left supporters.. Well... They are mobilized and ready to make things happen. They are also of the sort that want "revolution", a portion of them are of the "force" type and another portion of doing it from within the system. And they are ready to do away with things like freedom of speech, the electoral college and more. And just as the Republicans are weak willed and bend to Trump because they're afraid of him and the base, the Democrats will do exactly the same thing. So congrats to the right and Trump. Keep on attacking Biden as that will ensure Bernie gets the nomination. Thank you for making it more and more likely that someone (through his base that's ready to exert power) even more dangerous IMO has a chance of becoming the next President.


Maybe some small number but overall.. No I don't really think so.. The majority don't care as long as he gets them the judges and fights with the left (and the right to some extent) and the media, i.e. the "establishment". They're willing to look the other way over everything else as they think they're getting the greater good. Keep in mind that many of them are also of the mind set of "tear it all down". They want the "establishment" to destroy itself and fail to recognize that it will take the country with it. And the far left... Well.. They're just as bad but about other things.

My grandparents left Germany prior to WWII because they could see how things were changing etc. I'm starting to feel like I know exactly what they were feeling and experiencing.

Don't know what your point it. ...
[/quote]Dems brought an extremely weak case, and the weak case played out as a weak case would.

Wrong, not crazy.

2016 started out with a strong Anti-Trump-Cult.
There were many anti-Hillary factions and votes that went to Trump.
That has changed first to grudging acceptance to some outright enthusiasm.

I never thought Trump was that likable.

2020 seems to have about the same Anti-Trump-Cult as 2016. I don't agree with the Anti-Trump-Hate because, well for one thing, no new wars. For another, some progress in crime reform and jobs in the lower income sectors.

I don't expect a single supporter to have their mind changed by literally anything.  I meant the rest of the country.  I hope youre wrong about the second part, I mean the case wasn't that complicated, but yeah, you might be right.

---

Closing arguments start in a bit, then the Senators each get a chance to speak.  Will be interesting to see how many Republicans do a victory dance, how many speak out against Trump, and how many say nothing.

Yes, you probably are. Not a single trumper that I know has shown any signs of doubt regarding their leader. And those who haven't been paying attention for the last 4 years didn't suddenly become curious and informed. If anything, the economic boom has made it easier to ignore beltway politics.

I think there's something different happening among Trumps base and it's getting weirder and weirder.  They aren't choosing which politician is least bad, they are choosing to worship Trump.
I think that this whole impeachment process has the potential to bring it to the attention of many Americans who maybe haven't been following close enough to hear over all the noise that the President has been becoming more and more powerful.

These warning signs of a cult make me think...:

- Promises are made of a new life.
  * The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Everyone is listening to you now... From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. (inauguration)

- Former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative, or even evil.

- The Leaders authority is absolute, without meaningful accountability.

- There is no tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

- There is no meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget or expenses, such as an independently audited financial statement.  (Billionaire with international corporation, but wont let us see his taxes...)

- There exists an unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies, and persecutions.
 * You have no choice. You have to vote for me. Otherwise, everything that you've built in your entire life will be gone. Goodbye, Iowa. Have a good time. Instead, I worked my ass off up here, OK.
 * If you want your children to inherit the blessings that generations of Americans have fought and died for, then, we must devote everything we have toward victory in November of 2020. (this week)

- Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
  * Tillerson, General McMaster, General Kelly, etc...

- There are records, books, news articles, television programs that document the abuses of the leader. (fake news)

- The group/leader is always right.

- The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation; no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.



Am I crazy to think the trial might have opened a lot of peoples eyes who may have otherwise not paid attention to these things?

Don't know what your point it. When one group is judge, jury and executioner they can choose to ignore what is appropriate and legal for whatever reason they can pull out of their asses. Either side. And the people end up just having to suck it up and complain in their beer but then turn around and keep voting them all in time and time again. These days it's always voting for who you think is the least bad because there is no other choice.

Here is my view:

1: (False) The phone call was not perfect, it was full of quid pro quo

2: (False) The phone call recording should provide ample evidence alongside testimonies from those directly affected and involved

3: (False) If he did it, it definitely is an impeachable issue

Well, the Democrats have pursued all such theories, and here they are.

That is a common fallacy but is not true at all. There is a pretty long list of exceptions to it such as some of these which could be applied in this case:

- The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
- The declarant refuses to testify;

Some other exceptions which may or may not apply:

- It has sound guarantees of trustworthiness
- It is offered to help prove a material fact
- It is more probative than other equivalent and reasonably obtainable evidence
- Its admission would forward the cause of justice
- The other parties have been notified that it will be offered into evidence

That's just a handful. So yes, hearsay can be admissible. In this case much of it was corroborated between a variety of witnesses which gives it much more weight.

Next.

Try considering just the evidence of the trial, not that it's Trump being investigated, or the democrats doing the investigation, and no 'us vs them' mentality.

My opinion? They're all remembering the Kavanaugh fiasco, where there was time after time, "one more witness," "One more reason to keep it going." So if they shut it down quicker, it's the Dems past behavior as the cause. You got what you deserved.

Will you answer anyway?



Why do you think so much effort was put into making the arguments then?

"If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing"
-Lindsay Graham

Why would Graham say that, and then vote against having direct evidence in the trial?

And it wasn't just Graham.  The overall defense for weeks was 'there isn't enough evidence from just the transcript'.  Then after all the house testimony it was 'that's all just hearsay, none of the witnesses have first hand knowledge'.  And then when they found out someone was willing to provide direct evidence, they voted against hearing it. It's an overused saying, but why do you think they keep moving the goalpost when they could've just went with argument 3 from the beginning?

These are all strong legal arguments. You and I have had a couple discussions before about, IIRC, what constitutes, facts, evidence, "beyond a reasonable doubt" and now hearsay. You might put these definitions in a category named "Irrefutable rebuttals."

This is different than asking "did Trump do XYZ." I kind of get it, how those persecuting and harassing Trump wouldn't care about these realities of a legal case, IF their goal is just to parade anti-Trump memes before a public they think is gullible.

But this is exactly what those who criticize the whole thing as a total scam think.

So in my case, I'm forced to the conclusion the whole thing was a scam and a sham trial, because the weakness of the arguments presented is so laughable.

By the way, your statement above "it's all hearsay ---> implies" is curious. Nobody needs hearsay to imply that direct evidence would be relevant; the existence of hearsay is not a proof that direct evidence is relevant. There are standards for evidence.

The only one of the 1,2 and 3 that's even worth discussing is 3. What is the standard for impeachment? The other two are jokes. Here appears to be your case.

"We think the call in which he asks politely for help was strong-armed pressuring, and some people say they heard other people say other people said that was what it was, and we need to broaden the constitutional requirement of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' to include Trump's behavior as implied by letters that don't say it and as implied by hearsay not evidence."

That's pretty crazy and that's what you got.