Impeachment Hearings

[MigL]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm not really sure if MigL is on the left or right. He seems to think for himself. More should be like him.

Thanks JC.

And +1; that's the nicest thing anyone has said about me in a while.

I don't know much about H Biden, but wasn't he appointed to the board of AMTRAK by G W Bush ?
He is a layer and a lobbyist. And while lobbyists trade political favors, that is a problem with the system that needs to be addressed.
For all we know Hunter himself, may be very capable

Edited November 18, 2019 by MigL

[iNow]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

For all we know Hunter himself, may be very capable

Quite right. The focus on him is a ploy, a distraction, also known as an irrelevant red herring. 

[CharonY]

Slightly beside the point, but in some ways this thread seems like a microcosm of what postmodernist philosophers have predicted since the 80s. Instead of a common meta-narrative, knowledge is fragmented and used as a commodity by various actors (Lyotard refers specifically the issues of computerization and who determines which information is stored and disseminated-  a thought that can be easily extended to tech companies as the new gate-keepers of knowledge).

While we are dealing with exactly the same event, the associated strands of knowledge appear to be very different, resulting not only a different viewpoints, but in fact in parallel strands that do not cross over. It reminds me a bit on the concept of Language games where players agree to use certain rules to create meaning from uttered words. In the postmodernist world, according to Lyotard, we have created many parallel language games, each of which are legitimized by their respective institutions. So we may have politically affiliated language games, in which certain fragments of information carry entirely different meanings and which are self-referenced and amplified by the use of different communication channels (say, social media). Even when we discuss the same things on this board, we arrived to our conclusions using different lines of information. There is ultimately not thinking for oneself, unless one plays the solitaire equivalent of a language game. 

[geordief]

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

Quite right. The focus on him is a ploy, a distraction, also known as an irrelevant red herring. 

They have to focus on him anyway . If Trump brought it up ,not to focus on it suggests he was only using it as a  possibly dishonest* tactic.

 

It also has the effect of weakening the father's candidacy (I am not sure how I feel about Joe Biden;he does feel natural,but not so much when it  comes to policy where get the impression he is a good learner but lacks insight-maybe a good thing vs Trump ,mind you)

 

* I start from that assumption and give that creep no  more benefit of the doubt than absolutely necessary.

[iNow]

57 minutes ago, geordief said:

I am not sure how I feel about Joe Biden;he does feel natural,but not so much when it  comes to policy where get the impression he is a good learner but lacks insight

This comment fascinates me, and it makes me curious why you feel that way. I have my issues with old Uncle Joe, but knowledge of policy isn't one of them...

He was a Vice President for 8 years where he was also president of the Senate.

He was a US Senator for the state of Delaware for 36 years, was on a city council for 3 years before that, and before that completed his degree at the Syracuse University College of Law. 

He was chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary committee and also the Senate Foreign Relations committee. 

That's nearly 5 decades of direct experience in the space you seem to think he doesn't know much. 

 

You're obviously more than welcome to your own opinions and I want to be extremely clear this is not an attack on you, but the comment does fascinate me. Of everyone on the stage right now, he's perhaps the single most capable person in that regard... I'm just unsure I personally agree with all of his various policy subscriptions. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by iNow

[geordief]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

This comment fascinates me, and it makes me curious why you feel that way. I have my issues with old Uncle Joe, but knowledge of policy isn't one of them...

He was a Vice President for 8 years where he was also president of the Senate.

He was a US Senator for the state of Delaware for 36 years, was on a city council for 3 years before that, and before that completed his degree at the Syracuse University College of Law. 

He was chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary committee and also the Senate Foreign Relations committee. 

That's nearly 5 decades of direct experience in the space you seem to think he doesn't know much. 

 

You're obviously more than welcome to your own opinions and I want to be extremely clear this is not an attack on you, but the comment does fascinate me. Of everyone on the stage right now, he's perhaps the single most capable person in that regard... I'm just unsure I personally agree with all of his various policy subscriptions. 

I don't know why I have that impression, but he seems kind of doddery (like myself) and I find myself willing him to  come up with a good answer to the questions.

I accept he has great experience and great learning but I am minded of LBJ and his jibe against Gerald Ford not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I feel Biden is like that to a lesser degree. He relies on his experience to negotiate new territory but lacks the fast reactions he surely had when younger.

I still think that he might match up against Trump as he has a back catalogue of genuineness  and likeability that should carry him through.

It may be that his greatest enemy is his former self  ... He was the person I felt would easily beat Trump but his performances have half reassured me and half worried me. (Thought that talk with Erin Burnet a few nights ago typified that)

On balance ,yes I think he is still the best.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

They have to focus on him anyway .

No, they do not. 

1 hour ago, geordief said:

If Trump brought it up ,not to focus on it suggests he was only using it as a  possibly dishonest* tactic.

It also has the effect of weakening the father's candidacy (I am not sure how I feel about Joe Biden;he does feel natural,but not so much when it  comes to policy where get the impression he is a good learner but lacks insight-maybe a good thing vs Trump ,mind you)

 

* I start from that assumption and give that creep no  more benefit of the doubt than absolutely necessary.

You can focus on Trump's motivations without addressing Biden at all. You have the conversations, the inappropriateness of the people involved (Giuliani) and the information that Biden had already been checked out.

[jajrussel]

On 11/14/2019 at 9:32 AM, StringJunky said:

It is not without precedent. The UK queen is above prosecution since everything in that area is done in her name. The not small point though is that she does not govern. Trump could be hammered with a nice orange one-piece and and Hi Max accommodation  if the Senate was composed differently.

I don’t think the orange jumpsuit is the desired outcome... it would require due process. Which ,They don seem intent on allowing. They took life for granted now they want a do over. The one proven fact is that  a President isn’t really needed and politically is a disadvantage. 

[geordief]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, they do not. 

 

I meant Trump's supporters.Is that who you understood me to mean?

They have to follow their leader and validate his moves apparently.

[jajrussel]

On 11/14/2019 at 2:54 PM, CharonY said:

Maybe I just lost track, but wasn't a transcript moved to a secret server at some point?

To what end ? My understanding is that  A very clear succinct quote was given by Schiff, which I guess was necessary because the general practice had been to delete any and everything that might later be assumed to be evidence. I’m  guessing that Adam Schiff with first hand knowledge of his own parties tactics acted to prevent the republicans from benefiting from a proven tactic, with his narrative.  Moving the transcript to a secure server may have been a concerned White House member acting  to prevent the same thing from happening. Cause if the recorded conversation proved not enough to impeach,then the question of why recorded conversations between the president and other country leaders,  presumably assumed classified would be found  on an unsecured server. Another 4 years of turmoil... Aparently the republicans are as lax in security as Hillary, and well, Hillary is old news, a lessen that should have been learnt. Actually I’m surprised no one has brought it up yet. Note it couldn’t have been a secret server there are no secrets in the White House. So, you must have meant secure😊.

Edited November 18, 2019 by jajrussel
As a liberal I have copious amounts of sarcasm 😒

[iNow]

There is no recording. That’s not what was moved. The moving itself is an act of instruction, regardless of what was moved, by whom, or why

Edited November 18, 2019 by iNow

[jajrussel]

51 minutes ago, geordief said:

I meant Trump's supporters.Is that who you understood me to mean?

They have to follow their leader and validate his moves apparently.

Republicans don’t have to be Trump supporters. The attempt to turn republicans against Trump was the first shot fired after he won the election. No one has to toe the party line not even Mike Pence. It should be clear as print since the party lines are written on their websites, but you can download them and check them off one at a time. Nope no legislation submitted, andvoted for by most in either partyalong party lines...

[geordief]

14 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Republicans don’t have to be Trump supporters. The attempt to turn republicans against Trump was the first shot fired after he won the election. No one has to toe the party line not even Mike Pence. It should be clear as print since the party lines are written on their websites, but you can download them and check them off one at a time. Nope no legislation submitted, andvoted for by most in either partyalong party lines...

Yes it is a bit of a mystery why they do toe the  line,but they do.

My own view is that they are to some extent representative of the electorate and that reflects very badly  on the electorate.

Sorry to be so condescending.It does seem obvious ,though.

[jajrussel]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

There is no recording. That’s not what was moved. The moving itself is an act of instruction, regardless of what was moved, by whom, or why

Does Adam Schiff's rendition qualify as a recording. Is this why there has yet to be a word for word comparison of the two actual renditions?

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Thanks JC.

And +1; that's the nicest thing anyone has said about me in a while.

I don't know much about H Biden, but wasn't he appointed to the board of AMTRAK by G W Bush ?
He is a layer and a lobbyist. And while lobbyists trade political favors, that is a problem with the system that needs to be addressed.
For all we know Hunter himself, may be very capable

Isn’t lobbing about quid pro quo?

[iNow]

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Yes it is a bit of a mystery why they do toe the  line,but they do.

Primary voters 

2 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Does Adam Schiff's rendition qualify as a recording

I don’t know what you’re talking about. Perhaps you mean how he paraphrased the situation in an opening comment for a hearing a few weeks ago?

19 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

On my original point, I said Trump's defence (not in his defence) is that he, Trump, saw it as suspicious. That is sufficient for him to ask that it be investigated. 

Just to drill-down really quick on this specific point, the evidence continues to stack up against him having honorable intentions.

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/18/20970510/impeachment-hearings-news-sondland-williams-trump-morrison

Quote

On Saturday, the House Intelligence Committee, which leads the impeachment process, released a transcript of the closed-door deposition of Tim Morrison, formerly the top Ukraine official on the National Security Council. He revealedthat President Donald Trump ordered his staff to withhold military aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigations into Joe Biden’s family and Democrats.

Further, Morrison testified that Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25 was so concerning, it merited storing the transcript on a secret server to avoid its potential leak from damaging the White House.

<...>

“[Sondland] told me he had just gotten off the phone with the president,” Morrison said. “He told me ... that there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelensky must announce the opening of the investigations and he should want to do it.”

He didn't want the investigations, per se. He wanted them announced by a foreign leader.

[jajrussel]

On 11/14/2019 at 2:02 PM, iNow said:

Evidence gathering is happening now. Many things are being subpoenaed, but the WH is refusing to comply. They’re not letting their people give documents or testify despite the subpoenas. The WH is daring the congress to do something about it since it then goes to court and gets appealed and takes months to reach any sort of conclusion from a panel of judges. 

On the bribery point above, Trump is in many ways engaged in felony level bribery right now since he’s been doubling down on fund raisers for GOP Senators. This rakes in cash for them at the exact same time they’d be his jurors. 

Are you aware of any other court cases where the defendant can give money to or host fund raisers for tho jury? I’m not. 

What defendant? I’m an independent liberal socialist used to be registered Democrat. Produce a defendant. Produce a legitimate court. Produce a legitimate argument that Trump wasn’t  legally elected. I would never expect a republican to agree with my politics I want social medicine and open boarders with Mexico and Canada to include free trade between both countries simply because I think it would lead to economic stability and end the constant flood of immigration from at least the border states. I might be wrong about what I believe, but I know with absolute certainty that Democrats won’t do anything they  claim as party lines because they have controlled the Presidency and both house and senate not that long ago. What did they do about Dacca. If memory serves there was a presidential decree. What did they do about about Medicare 4 all. Another decree called affordable healthcare when what they meant was affordable insurance as defined by the insurers  Protected by federal judges?  Not really.had they displayed any real desire to follow the party beliefs as stated on their web page Hillary would have still lost because the insurers would have thrown their full weight behind anyone supporting their cause which is to remove the parts of Obama care they found financially restrictive. In the meantime Democrats are moving toward the rally cry of we have to do this one tiny step at a time and half assed like they did with Dacca when they were in power to clench the deal but didn’t. If we are going to rule by Presidential decree we could simply do away with Congress and make due with handpicked federal judges selected by the parties in power just in case the people screw up and elect the wrong President, again. The OP asked what has to be done to get rid of the clown. Sorry paraphrasing. The answer...Vote him out...  wow! no trial necessary... I shouldn’t have to be reminded a million times that no man is above the Law. Not in America.That simple fact alone should be enough to rouse the curious to ask what the hell is going on. That people feel the need to imply that laws have been broken constantly is self evident that no laws have been broken at least not laws they wish to remain hidden from review. They couldn’t control Muller but honestly I’m expected to believe that only republicans were found out in his investigation.

whistle blower laws are designed to protect whistle blowers from retribution from their bosses. Honestly what can the President do? Fire them? Prevent from ever getting another job. No man is above the law but every man citizen or otherwise is entitled to due process  they can claim that the current process isn’t criminal therefore due process is a mute point, but what happens when immigration is declared a civil process therefore no due process for immigrants legal or otherwise is warranted by their own mandate?

 Amazing that politicians should rally around the call of culpable quid pro quo. What is politics if not quid pro quo? Is that why Americans politicians are always giving  our money away?No quid pro quo Allowed. What are we buying? A thorn in Russia or Chinas side. Why?  What did Americans gain giving away weapons with or without without quid pro quo? One would think that we would be the world’s favorite Sugar daddy not the evil Empire that we  we are presented as. 
 

 I would like to thank Migl. For giving me the opportunity to vent.  The truth is I have been tired of being an old white man with an opinion afraid to open his mouth simply because I am an old white man with an opinion. Vote trump out it’s that simple. Then fit him for an orange jumpsuit if it is warranted.  If he has done something wrong then runs to some foreign state to avoid prosecution then I’m betting that quid pro quo will become the next rally call of his haters and the foreign state his recipient country and they will own us completely.

[iNow]

Are you familiar with the Gish Gallop? Please, focus on the things that matter instead of introducing a bunch of bullshit irrelevant to the discussion taking place.

[jajrussel]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Are you familiar with the Gish Gallop? Please, focus on the things that matter instead of introducing a bunch of bullshit irrelevant to the discussion taking place.

I’m familiar with the term kiss ass. It’s the family motto so kiss ass.

Edited November 18, 2019 by jajrussel

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m confused. Everything I’ve shared is already in the public domain. Which of my comments do you feel is of questionable validity?

Facts vs opinion

Public domain of course doesn't make it factual. Trump's tweets are public domain. I can't remember for certain but I seem to recall one or two of them being less than 100% factual.

But seriously let's go over some of your facts from that post. I won't dispute them as I am not sure of the contexts intended, other than question they should be taken as gospel.

15 hours ago, iNow said:

It had already been investigated. Even Trumps own team said nothing was wrong there. And... Even if he wanted it investigated, he needed to defer it to others who were uninvolved (but we all know how he feels about people who do the right thing by recusing themselves... see also: Jeff Sessions) .

He didn’t want an investigation. He couldn’t care less about corruption unless he’s trying to hide his own. No... He wanted a public announcement on CNN from a foreign leader that Biden was being investigated. 

I've already shared these facts with you previously in this thread. I know you’re merely trying to represent Trumps position accurately even though you don’t necessarily agree with it, but continuing to ignore these facts and acting as if they're irrelevant makes your representation of his position is a bit too on the nose for my taste.

The first: Who was "Trump's own team"? Does this refer to Hunter Biden's dealings? Or specifically Joe Biden's quid pro quo that at leats appears to have been on behalf of America and not for personal gain or to protect his Son (as Trump I think has suggested). When did this investigation take place? Did it finish prior to his call with Zelensky? 

Second: This is not something I would expect him to do, nor do I believe he was legally bound to do it. Given the animus and bad faith between Trump and the Democrats I really don't blame him for that. I can understand why you would, reasonably, but don't see it as impeachable.

Third: Sounds like Trump, but where, when and by whom was this confirmed? Again not impeachable unless tied directly to a personal, pretty much exclusively personal, quid pro quo.

Now, when I say impeachable or not they are my opinions, not my facts, but I do believe it comes down to sufficient evidence, not just best evidence (especially if and where not enough is available)

Of course what is sufficient will be different for the Senate than the House...and if you compare with the coming 2020 election it will be different again. That is the gauntlet Trump must run to get back for another 4 years. The most the House can do is slow him down...which may allow him to build momentum going forward if perceived to have not been done fairly. All that of course being opinion...

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The first: Who was "Trump's own team"?

The ambassadors. The state department. The military. Basically, everyone except him and Rudy Giuliani. 
 

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Does this refer to Hunter Biden's dealings?

Yes

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Third: Sounds like Trump, but where, when and by whom was this confirmed?

I shared a link in my post earlier today where this was confirmed under oath during testimony given in Friday. 

[iNow]

On 11/17/2019 at 3:32 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

I do believe the Dems are suffering from poor tactics. They might work, but could also backfire, as I have said many times. I also believe a decent moderate Dem, if given the ticket, would have a walk in the park to the Whitehouse, making their impeachment tactics unnecessary.

FYI - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/70-americans-trumps-actions-tied-ukraine-wrong-poll/story?id=67088534
 

Quote

An overwhelming 70% of Americans think President Donald Trump’s request to a foreign leader to investigate his political rival, which sits at the heart of the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry, was wrong, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds.

A slim majority of Americans, 51%, believe Trump’s actions were both wrong and he should be impeached and removed from office.

 

Update:
Fascinating comments from former Secretary of State for Trump, Rex Tillerson today down in San Antonio. 

Relevant section starts at minute 1:25

Note that I have no idea why their chairs were so abnormally large. I guess everything is indeed bigger in Texas. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by iNow

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, jajrussel said:

The truth is I have been tired of being an old white man with an opinion afraid to open his mouth simply because I am an old white man with an opinion.

Yes, life is rough for us old white men. We live in fear because everyone in this country is out to get us.

[MigL]

I don't like to make fun of anyone's health issues, but do you think the stress of the Hearings is getting to the President ?
Apparently he was rushed to the Hospital for a possible heart condition/monitoring.

Yes, life IS rough for old white men, Zap.
Not so much the 'white' part, but the 'old' part is really starting to annoy me.

Edited November 19, 2019 by MigL

[jajrussel]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

Yes, life is rough for us old white men. We live in fear because everyone in this country is out to get us.

 

5 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't like to make fun of anyone's health issues, but do you think the stress of the Hearings is getting to the President ?
Apparently he was rushed to the Hospital for a possible heart condition/monitoring.

Yes, life IS rough for old white men, Zap.
Not so much the 'white' part, but the 'old' part is really starting to annoy me.

😒😊😂 Okay, my bad...

 I think it was Frank Herbert who wrote, fear is the mind killer?

 I would add that stress exposes the soul...

Edited November 19, 2019 by jajrussel

[swansont]

18 hours ago, geordief said:

I meant Trump's supporters.Is that who you understood me to mean?

I thought you were referring to GOP congresscrittters.

 

Quote

They have to follow their leader and validate his moves apparently.

Well, no. They are predisposed to do so, but they could theoretically choose not to.

17 hours ago, jajrussel said:

To what end ? My understanding is that  A very clear succinct quote was given by Schiff, which I guess was necessary because the general practice had been to delete any and everything that might later be assumed to be evidence.

Which is in violation of laws and regulations. As is classifying material motivated by covering up such violations.

 

Quote

I’m  guessing that Adam Schiff with first hand knowledge of his own parties tactics acted to prevent the republicans from benefiting from a proven tactic, with his narrative.  Moving the transcript to a secure server may have been a concerned White House member acting  to prevent the same thing from happening. Cause if the recorded conversation proved not enough to impeach,then the question of why recorded conversations between the president and other country leaders,  presumably assumed classified would be found  on an unsecured server. Another 4 years of turmoil... Aparently the republicans are as lax in security as Hillary, and well, Hillary is old news, a lessen that should have been learnt. Actually I’m surprised no one has brought it up yet. Note it couldn’t have been a secret server there are no secrets in the White House. So, you must have meant secure😊.

No one has brought it up? You aren't paying attention. It's yet another hypocrisy that shows once again that the GOP's actual motivations have nothing to do with their claimed motivations.

13 hours ago, jajrussel said:

What defendant? I’m an independent liberal socialist used to be registered Democrat. Produce a defendant. Produce a legitimate court.

We haven't gotten there yet. That would be the impeachment trial, held in the senate.

Quote

Produce a legitimate argument that Trump wasn’t  legally elected.

What does this have to do with anything under discussion?

Quote

The OP asked what has to be done to get rid of the clown. Sorry paraphrasing. The answer...Vote him out...  wow! no trial necessary... I shouldn’t have to be reminded a million times that no man is above the Law. Not in America.That simple fact alone should be enough to rouse the curious to ask what the hell is going on. That people feel the need to imply that laws have been broken constantly is self evident that no laws have been broken at least not laws they wish to remain hidden from review. They couldn’t control Muller but honestly I’m expected to believe that only republicans were found out in his investigation.

It's self-evident that no laws have been broken? Seriously? No campaign finance laws were broken? Trump's organization didn't misuse money intended for veterans?

But that moot, since impeachment is not necessarily about lawbreaking. 

 

Quote

whistle blower laws are designed to protect whistle blowers from retribution from their bosses. Honestly what can the President do? Fire them? Prevent from ever getting another job. No man is above the law but every man citizen or otherwise is entitled to due process  they can claim that the current process isn’t criminal therefore due process is a mute point, but what happens when immigration is declared a civil process therefore no due process for immigrants legal or otherwise is warranted by their own mandate?

They can claim that about due process, but it doesn't make it true. The claims I have seen about due process are based on misinformation (possibly deliberate) about the process. What due process has not been afforded anyone? This is impeachment. The due process is found in the Constitution.