Impeachment Hearings

[iNow]

On 11/18/2019 at 2:29 PM, iNow said:

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

Ambassador Sondland just also confirmed this point today during his testimony to Congress:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/20/20974201/gordon-sondland-impeachment-hearing-testimony-biden-show-trump

Quote

A real investigation by Ukraine was not the explicit goal.

Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s Wednesday House testimony was full of revelations. One of them is that President Donald Trump never seemed to ask Ukraine for an actual investigation of Vice President Joe Biden or his son, Hunter.

All he wanted, according to Sondland, was a public announcement of an investigation. He wanted a show.

<...>

SCHIFF: But he had to get those two investigations if that official act was going to take place, correct?

SONDLAND: He had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them

So much for the Trump was just trying to do the honorable thing and minimize corruption talking point. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

So much for the Trump was just trying to do the honorable thing and minimize corruption talking point. 

It is going to be the 5th avenue all over again.

[jajrussel]

On 11/19/2019 at 5:56 AM, swansont said:

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.

I’m  trying to understand what you mean here. Are you saying that the process for impeachment as defined by the Constitution is due process defined, and so long as the process is followed as given by the constitution then due process has been given if so that makes sense. Hmm... i have read that the term due process is mentioned twice in the constitution, but that the Supreme Court has been somewhat reluctant to define what the term itself means. (Possibly because each state seems to have its own laws that to some degree determine how  due process is determined within their own borders) this part is just me guessing. I believe I read about the Supreme Court never really defining due process in Wikipedia that in itself would make misinformation easier to spread and mislead, but the impeachment process is spelled out in the Constitution. If following that process is due process Then following that process would be due process given, in my opinion, assuming that my opinion is not total BS all the time

 

On 11/19/2019 at 5:56 AM, swansont said:

What does this have to do with anything under discussion?

The statement i made that Drew this question may have been my GishGallop side showing . Though,  I’m not sure because until recently I wasn’t aware i had one. I’d never heard my somewhat strong  support for the President referred to in that way before. So I was caught off guard. How amazingly clever some are in building their argument. I don’t believe the president is absolutely in the right, but take him down rightly. Not by trying to drown him in opinion. Please note  i am answering your question here, and making a statement. Not implying that you are the one trying to drown Him in opinion

[iNow]

33 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

I don’t believe the president is absolutely in the right, but take him down rightly.

I also would prefer the president be beaten in an election. Unfortunately, it’s the credibility and validity of the upcoming election that is being directly attacked by his actions (abusing the power of his office to have foreign nations investigate his political rivals for personal gain).

It’s the next election that he’s already been cheating in, so that makes this approach of waiting for the next election to decide far less sensible to folks like you and me who are seeking fairness in the process. 

Theres also the whole thing about him not upholding his oath to the constitution, but I understand most people don’t share my concern over that. 

We agree waiting for the election is better. Can we also agree that election should not be swung by foreign interference? If so, we need to first address the cheating he’s engaged in, don’t we?

Edited November 21, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 11/18/2019 at 6:33 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

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...

Just wondering. For the purpose of removing Trump from office, through the impeachment process or upcoming election...

Do you feel what has been heard so far is sufficient? (not for you personally, just your opinion on the effect on Trump's potential removal)

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Ambassador Sondland just also confirmed this point today during his testimony to Congress:

 

Confirmed that Trump was after an announcement on investigating Burisma?

Or specifically announcing investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden?

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you feel what has been heard so far is sufficient? (not for you personally, just your opinion on the effect on Trump's potential removal)

Yes. Evidence isn’t an issue in this process which is itself political. As I shared previously, he could be impeached for something as benign as preferring sweet relish over dill relish if there were enough votes in Congress to do it. 

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Confirmed that Trump was after an announcement on investigating Burisma?

Or specifically announcing investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden?

He was after the announcement and it was widely accepted that there was no difference between Burisma and Biden... they were considered one and the same  (as confirmed yesterday by Morrison in his testimony and also reconfirmed today by Sondland in his)

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes. Evidence isn’t an issue in this process which is itself political. As I shared previously, he could be impeached for something as benign as preferring sweet relish over dill relish if there were enough votes in Congress to do it. 

So you expect him to get removed from office? Not theoretically but actually.

Yes would mean you expect both the House and Senate to vote against him.

Anything less is not sufficient unless it provides the critical difference in the election.

[iNow]

My answer is unchanged since I posted it last week. 
 

On 11/14/2019 at 8:56 AM, iNow said:

This isn't about laws. It's clear he's broken laws, but as rightly mentioned above, he's in charge of enforcing them. For this reason, the founders gave us a political solution, namely impeachment.

If congress wants to vote him out for liking brussel sprouts more than broccoli or for having too high of a handicap on his golf game, they surely can and that's entirely within their power. It's not about proving anything legally, but is instead about getting both the House and the Senate to agree removal is in order... it's about politics. Senate won't do that, however, because they're a bunch of lilly-livered $*#*s afraid of losing their powerful seat and getting voted out in the next election.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

My answer is unchanged since I posted it last week. 
 

 

Then should your answer be "no", it still isn't sufficient? (due to your lilly-livered Senate)

 

Or do you think it will be sufficient to persuade voters in 2020?

[iNow]

I find the evidence sufficient, yes. Unfortunately, the GOP led senate doesn’t prioritize evidence the way I do. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes. Evidence isn’t an issue in this process which is itself political. As I shared previously, he could be impeached for something as benign as preferring sweet relish over dill relish if there were enough votes in Congress to do it. 

He was after the announcement and it was widely accepted that there was no difference between Burisma and Biden... they were considered one and the same  (as confirmed yesterday by Morrison in his testimony and also reconfirmed today by Sondland in his)

Unless that wide acceptance includes Trump...he has an argument against impeachment.

[iNow]

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

He was after the announcement and it was widely accepted that there was no difference between Burisma and Biden... they were considered one and the same  (as confirmed yesterday by Morrison in his testimony and also reconfirmed today by Sondland in his)

Quick correction: It was ambassador Volker yesterday who confirmed there was no functional difference between investigating Burisma and Biden, not Morrison

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unless that wide acceptance includes Trump...he has an argument against impeachment.

Whatever. Anybody can argue anything. You may as well be telling me water is wet. He can raise a defense when the trial portion starts in the Senate. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, iNow said:

I find the evidence sufficient, yes. Unfortunately, the GOP led senate doesn’t prioritize evidence the way I do. 

I knew you would, personally. I honestly was looking for your expectation on how this is heading...your detached judgement of the effect of the process so far.

55 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Just wondering. For the purpose of removing Trump from office, through the impeachment process or upcoming election...

Do you feel what has been heard so far is sufficient? (not for you personally, just your opinion on the effect on Trump's potential removal)

Confirmed that Trump was after an announcement on investigating Burisma?

Or specifically announcing investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden?

 

Did Sondland's testimony meet your expectations?

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Quick correction: It was ambassador Volker yesterday who confirmed there was no functional difference between investigating Burisma and Biden, not Morrison

Whatever. Anybody can argue anything. You may as well be telling me water is wet. He can raise a defense when the trial portion starts in the Senate. 

...and as long as it's remotely plausible...it doesn't get past the Senate...Trump does a victory dance claiming 110% "exoneration"...

...and the greased pig runs free...

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I honestly was looking for your expectation on how this is heading...your detached judgement of the effect of the process so far.

Most people had their mind up before the process began. Support for impeachment among independents, however, is up since the public testimony began. That’s significant.

The majority of Americans want to see him impeached, but our government tends to ignore what the majority wants due to unlimited campaign contributions, lobbying, gerrymandered districts, the electoral college, and more. 

[jajrussel]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

and as long as it's remotely plausible...it doesn't get past the Senate...Trump does a victory dance claiming 110% "exoneration"...

This number sounds somewhat conservative😊

[iNow]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

We agree waiting for the election is better. Can we also agree that election should not be swung by foreign interference? If so, we need to first address the cheating he’s engaged in, don’t we?

Genuinely curious to get your answer to this, @jajrussel

[swansont]

10 hours ago, jajrussel said:

I’m  trying to understand what you mean here. Are you saying that the process for impeachment as defined by the Constitution is due process defined, and so long as the process is followed as given by the constitution then due process has been given if so that makes sense.

Yes. The due process of the impeachment process is laid out in the constitution, but pretty much all it says is that everything about impeachment (up to the point of the trial) is up to the House. So they get to define due process. 

IOW, there is nothing anyone has pointed to that would actually be a violation of due process. There has been a lot of complaining about e.g. the closed-door depositions, and how that's not how a trial proceeds — but we're not in the trial phase. There's the recent event where Nunes tried to yield his time to Stefanik, which was in violation of the rules that had been set up (IIRC, set up by the GOP majority a few years back): it's all posturing for the cameras, so that viewers who don't know any better will think that something shady is going on with the process. But none of it stands up to scrutiny. It's a charade.

 

 

[jajrussel]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

We agree waiting for the election is better. Can we also agree that election should not be swung by foreign interference? If so, we need to first address the cheating he’s engaged in, don’t we?

 

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Genuinely curious to get your answer to this, @jajrussel

The seeds of doubt have been planted and nourished. There will never again be a time when the question of foreign influence in American elections is not brought up. The question is do we cower in the presence of manipulation or do we tell all foreign powers  to step aside or be moved because we have a lot of catching up that needs to be done.

 I don’t believe in baby steps, The first thing that needs to be done is to get the job done. I want Medicare for all the Democrats say they want they same thing. The Closer they get to election their Rhetoric changes. They start the conversation  by saying well this is I want, this what you deserve, but the first thing we need to do is, start small. 

My thoughts on dealing with foreign interference are no different than unending promises of real American health care.

Enough is enough, just get it done. Either do it or get out of the way, so someone else can do it.  There is work to be done. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, jajrussel said:

The seeds of doubt have been planted and nourished. There will never again be a time when the question of foreign influence in American elections is not brought up. The question is do we cower in the presence of manipulation or do we tell all foreign powers  to step aside or be moved because we have a lot of catching up that needs to be done.

Perhaps you're right, but this is frankly a cop-out answer that evades my actual question.

I'm not talking about "hypothetical" foreign influence that "may be" raised as a concern in the future. I'm talking about an actual event that has already occurred; an event which directly puts the fairness and integrity of our next election at risk... the very election you and I both agree should be the place where this decision about removal ultimately gets made.

We can't use that election for the decision since one of the key candidates in that election has cheated in a way that makes the election itself unfair and invalid.

The current President of the United States directly abused the powers of his office and illegally withheld $400M in congressionally mandated military assistance to Ukraine (itself approved by the Pentagon in May as to be going to a country which it certified is doing enough to address internal corruption to meet the congressional requirements for that aid to be sent) and he is doing so for personal gain against a political opponent.

This isn't about "bringing up the question of foreign influence in American elections." This is about addressing a specific act taken by our President to destroy the integrity and fairness of this next election and which puts our national security at risk.

If we were playing a game you and me, and I was cheating at the game in a way that you cannot, would you still continue to suggest that we should simply keep playing until the end and let me keep cheating throughout in order to determine which one of us is the actual winner? Surely no, yet that's the outcome of your suggestion for this election... One person is cheating to rig the results of the election, and you want the election to be the mechanism used to decide if they should be allowed to remain?

 

2 hours ago, jajrussel said:

I want Medicare for all the Democrats say they want they same thing.

Super duper. So glad you shared. Your support is noted, but it also has absolutely zero to do with what we're discussing and what I've asked you.

[jajrussel]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps you're right, but this is frankly a cop-out answer that evades my actual question.

You want to lead me down a narrow path that you define. No one is allowed an opinion that isn’t yours. Who’s influence are you under?you either labeled other opinions as total BS or  you cry fowl out of bounds then start waving your banner once again😊. Have a great day Bott...

 

[iNow]

There's just no need for comments like these. Please try to keep it civil. I've shown you respect and expect the same in return.

On 11/18/2019 at 4:09 PM, jajrussel said:

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

 

12 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

No one is allowed an opinion that isn’t yours. Who’s influence are you under? <...> Have a great day Bott...

 

13 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

You want to lead me down a narrow path that you define.

We agree the election is the place to decide the outcome. How can we do that when one of the candidates is actively cheating in that election?

Edited November 21, 2019 by iNow

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

You want to lead me down a narrow path that you define. No one is allowed an opinion that isn’t yours. Who’s influence are you under?you either labeled other opinions as total BS or  you cry fowl out of bounds then start waving your banner once again😊. Have a great day Bott...

We're discussing impeachment in this thread. Pointing out that we're not discussing the next election is consistent with following the path laid down by the OP, which is how these discussions work.

[J.C.MacSwell]

@INow

There was apparently some Russian meddling in the 2016 election. There is no evidence that Trump or his organization was cheating (in that regard). Or are you suggesting something else?

Edited November 21, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

@INow

There was apparently some Russian meddling in the 2016 election. There is no evidence that Trump or his organization was cheating (in that regard). Or are you suggesting something else?

There was obstruction of justice. Laws were broken. The president is the senior-most law enforcement official in our country so he has the power to prevent the law from affecting him. This is why we have impeachment. I feel the Russian meddling in 2016 is also a red herring, unless you buy the nonsense argument that Trump was right to think Ukraine did it and not Russia and that's why he wanted an investigation.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

There was obstruction of justice. Laws were broken. The president is the senior-most law enforcement official in our country so he has the power to prevent the law from affecting him. This is why we have impeachment. I feel the Russian meddling in 2016 is also a red herring, unless you buy the nonsense argument that Trump was right to think Ukraine did it and not Russia and that's why he wanted an investigation.

Exactly how is this cheating in the election? You claimed he was cheating, did you not?