Impeachment Hearings

[iNow]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

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

It was a call summary, not a transcript. There were gaps in the conversation.... large parts replaced with ellipses... but yes, it was moved to a top secret server to cover it up

[Phi for All]

26 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I don't think this would ever be happening, but for the attempt on Bill Clinton. If I was a Democrat, that would be all the motivation I would need to impeach Trump.

I sincerely hope this view isn't held by anyone in leadership, being an example of the worst side of partisanism. Silly to think retaliation is necessary over Bill Clinton's impeachment, especially for no reason (which you imply by saying you need no more motivation than that it happened). It also shows a shallow, generalized, and caricaturish understanding of what a Democrat is. 

The only motivation for impeaching the POTUS should be his actions while in office. This is clearly no witch hunt since there is ample evidence, and it's not a retaliation either, unless you think the charges of tax evasion leveled at Al Capone were in retaliation for all the other crimes he committed. It's an investigation into the clear extortion exercised by someone in a unique position who is held by the Constitution to higher standards of behavior, standards this POTUS has clearly had trouble adhering to. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It's not like one is OK and the other not.

And I didn't imply that at all, unless I misread myself. But they do have different definitions.

[rangerx]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Based on what we know today, there is no real time recording of his conversation available nor an actual transcript. We have the call summary that was released and testimony from those who listened to the call live. 

Oh? What was purportedly locked up in a secure private server then?

Apparently this was a call made to an unsecured cell phone in a setting where others could listen in.

The phone provider would have a copy.

Beside that, if it were a "perfect" call, Trump would have no trouble releasing it otherwise why would he spend so much time going out of his way to hide evidence of his innocence?

Perfect is never a term used to describe a general conversation, it's used in response to executing a scheme.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

Oh? What was purportedly locked up in a secure private server then?

A call summary. Same as I said last 2 times. It’s not a transcript. 

[rangerx]

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

A call summary. Same as I said last 2 times. It’s not a transcript. 

Which begs the question, what's the difference?

Not that I expect you to know what it contains, insomuch as why release one and secure the other?

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I sincerely hope this view isn't held by anyone in leadership, being an example of the worst side of partisanism.

 

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The only motivation for impeaching the POTUS should be his actions while in office.

Noble sentiments I'm sure. But surely you're not blind to the voting record on impeachment hearings? Can it really be that Democrats genuinely see it one way, and Republicans see it another, after hearing the SAME evidence? That's  the real  world of politics, not the innocent one that you are imagining.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

It was a call summary, not a transcript. There were gaps in the conversation.... large parts replaced with ellipses... but yes, it was moved to a top secret server to cover it up

Oh, OK. I assumed that what they moved to the servers was different from the summary they released. 

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Which begs the question, what's the difference?

In a transcript, you have a word for word (or nearly perfection) rendition of the call. That’s not what we have  

In this summary, we have lots of ellipses and things left out. There are multiple clues that it’s been fairly well edited.

The duration of the call also doesn’t match the total number of words spoken based on past calls as a baseline, and other clues to omissions as highlighted in the second link. 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/25/20883420/full-transcript-trump-ukraine-zelensky-white-house

Quote

It’s important to note, at the outset, that this call summary is not quite a verbatim transcript of what Trump and Zelensky said. It’s written like a transcript, with direct quotations assigned to each leader, but it is not an authoritative transcription of an audio recording — as a note on the first page makes clear.

“The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty Officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place,” it explains. “A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/03/odd-markings-ellipses-fuel-doubts-about-rough-transcript-trumps-ukraine-call/

Quote

Current and former U.S. officials studying the document pointed to several elements that, they say, indicate that the document may have been handled in an unusual way.

Those include the use of ellipses — punctuation indicating that information has been deleted for clarity or other reasons — that traditionally have not appeared in summaries of presidential calls with foreign leaders, according to the current and former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the elaborate, non-public process.

<...>

The transcript of a 24-minute call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in which both the participants spoke English, included roughly 3,200 words, or about 133 words per minute. A 53-minute call with then-Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, in which both Trump and the Mexican president spoke through interpreters, included roughly 5,500 words, or about 102 words per minute.

The White House summary of Trump’s 30-minute call with Zelensky — which included interpreters because Zelensky spoke Ukrainian while Trump spoke English — includes fewer than 2,000 words, or roughly 65 words per minute. That suggests that the rough transcript of the Zelensky call includes about half the number of words that would be expected if the call had proceeded at the same or similar pace as the previous calls.

 

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Oh, OK. I assumed that what they moved to the servers was different from the summary they released. 

It’s possible, but we don’t currently have evidence of that. Such is the problem with “secret” servers. The stuff placed on them is secret.

[CharonY]

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Noble sentiments I'm sure. But surely you're not blind to the voting record on impeachment hearings? Can it really be that Democrats genuinely see it one way, and Republicans see it another, after hearing the SAME evidence?

All impeachments are based on the actions in office. Of course there is political spin but if folks cannot get public support, it will be difficult to proceed beyond the commitees. In fact, McCain and Boehner opposed impeachment proceedings against Obama as they consider it to be a risk to for the 2014 elections. Likewise, I suspect that Pelosi was opposed to starting the inquiry after the Muller report, as she feared it negatively affecting the elections. If revenge was the motive rather than conduct (in terms of political fuel for elections) why the delay? The senate composition has not changed since then. In other words, it is not necessarily only about judging on the facts, but considering what the voter base would do if they vote one way or another after hearing the evidence. Of course, in the age of social media public opinion has become more isolated from each other, which makes it easier to vote along partisan lines. However, there the fact that among independents the support for impeachment is increasing could affect future elections.

Just to given an example, the support for impeachment of Obama was also split among partisan lines, though as a whole was quite lower than for Trump currently.

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s possible, but we don’t currently have evidence of that. Such is the problem with “secret” servers. The stuff placed on them is secret.

Wait, so you do not have access to the secret server yet? You should complain to the IT department.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, rangerx said:

Nonsense, spoken as though high crimes and misdemeanors are more pervasive on the left.

It's more like all the radical right has are talking points, moving goal posts and finger wagging, when in reality it's the conservative house that needs cleaning.

Wow. You're good. I didn't even have to hint at high crimes and misdemeanors. No mention at all.

What gave me away?

OK. I actually looked up "lesser of two evils"

So there's that. It could read lesser of two negatives but that is a little ambiguous IMO.

I was referring specifically with regard to what it would take to remove Trump.

[iNow]

As an interesting aside, we get so wrapped around the wheel on the “high crimes and misdemeanors” portion that we often forget the treason and/or bribery portions of the text which actually came first when the constitution was drafted.

In that light, you might notice also how Speaker Pelosi herself today in a press briefing used the word bribery when talking about Trump’s actions, and it’s an important term that’s come up repeatedly in the hearings, too. 
 

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

Quote

“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4
 

 

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Phi for All said:

 And I didn't imply that at all, unless I misread myself. But they do have different definitions.

Didn't mean to imply that, sorry.

The point though is that you can argue it's one or the other, but they are both impeachable behaviors, so in that sense it doesn't matter which one it was.

15 hours ago, iNow said:

It was a call summary, not a transcript. There were gaps in the conversation.... large parts replaced with ellipses... but yes, it was moved to a top secret server to cover it up

I think the implication is that the summary that was put on the classified system was more complete, and the ellipses in the released summary represent omissions from the original document. Implying that there is even more damning evidence in the original document.

14 hours ago, rangerx said:

Oh? What was purportedly locked up in a secure private server then?

Apparently this was a call made to an unsecured cell phone in a setting where others could listen in.

The phone provider would have a copy.

Wait. Phone providers record all conversations? I surely hope not. But there were probably a crap-ton of government spooks from many countries listening in. I don't know that any of them would want to own up to that fact and provide a transcript, though. It's also possible that Ukraine has a transcript of the call.

There were calls made on unsecured phones (the followup call brought up in this week's testimony, for example), but I'm not sure this was one of them. 

 

14 hours ago, rangerx said:

Beside that, if it were a "perfect" call, Trump would have no trouble releasing it otherwise why would he spend so much time going out of his way to hide evidence of his innocence?

You are trying to apply normal logic, and that's not gonna work. If Trump were truly innocent, one might expect an attitude of "bring it on!" and release of all relevant material. But what we have here is mob mentality: "You ain't go nuthin'!" shouted above the din of industrial shredders.

 

 

[dimreepr]

Politics explained... local gossip with delusions of grandeur.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

I think the implication is that the summary that was put on the classified system was more complete, and the ellipses in the released summary represent omissions from the original document. Implying that there is even more damning evidence in the original document.

I hadn't previously considered this framing, but you may indeed be correct. Thanks for the extra clarity.

Here we seem to have another case where it's not necessarily the crime which brings down the president, but the attempt to cover it up. We'll see, though. I don't think anyone is getting "brought down" by this process, only wounded before next year's election.

[CharonY]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

Here we seem to have another case where it's not necessarily the crime which brings down the president, but the attempt to cover it up. We'll see, though. I don't think anyone is getting "brought down" by this process, only wounded before next year's election.

Thinking the same. I am wondering how a secret vote in the senate would look like, though.

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Thinking the same. I am wondering how a secret vote in the senate would look like, though.

Many more guilty votes than not guilty. I read a few weeks ago that as many as 30 senators had quietly confirmed behind closed doors that they'd vote to convict if their vote could remain anonymous

[mistermack]

20 hours ago, iNow said:

Many more guilty votes than not guilty. I read a few weeks ago that as many as 30 senators had quietly confirmed behind closed doors that they'd vote to convict if their vote could remain anonymous

I'm pretty sure that's right. Trump was never loved or respected or even wanted by the Republican establishment. 

But I do think it's important that votes are made public. The politicians were put there by the public, they are paid for by the public, and voting is one of the most important things that they are paid to do. So the public should be able to scrutinise the votes of the people they are electing and paying. Even if there are times when it might seem better if they couldn't. 

[iNow]

33 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I'm pretty sure that's right.

I’ll try not making a habit of it.
 

34 minutes ago, mistermack said:

But I do think it's important that votes are made public

They are, and will be, so this side point is basically moot.

It’s just sad that instead of voting their conscience and for what they think / know in their heart is right, they’ll instead be voting for their personal self-interest and for what’s most likely to keep them in power at the next election. 

“There’s a reason why JFK’s Profiles in Courage was such a thin book.”

[J.C.MacSwell]

I wonder, given the way the hearings are going, whether Trump will be even be impeached by the House.

If he is it is of course on to the Senate with the control reversed. With last say on the matter that could affect the lasting impression of all this heading into the 2020 election

But nothing of note so far that we don't already know or could infer from the transcript released on the call with Zelensky. It seems at best so far as more evidence that Trump is misfit for the job due to his narcissistic personality, and questionable ethics.

So no sign of change since he put his hat in the ring in 2015, and eventually won.

Meanwhile the Democrats are looking worse all the time. (Maybe the GOP is as as well, but against the backdrop of the current Democrats it hardly seems that way)

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

nothing of note so far that we don't already know or could infer

What you may be forgetting is all of the steps they’re documenting where he’s obstructing the cheating and refusing subpoenas. Those behaviors represent their own set of problems we’ll beyond just the ask made on the call. 

[MonDie]

On 11/14/2019 at 8:03 PM, iNow said:

In that light, you might notice also how Speaker Pelosi herself today in a press briefing used the word bribery when talking about Trump’s actions, and it’s an important term that’s come up repeatedly in the hearings, too. 

Our current congressional body does not survive through integrity, but through tactful, duplicitous appeals to their voters and their donors.  They have challengers, and Pelosi's primary challenger is Shahid Buttar (link to The Damage Report is transcribed below).

"I have argued that the president should have been impeached from the first day he took office if only because, preceding his term in office, he was enriching himself at public [sic] expense.  And there is no stronger ground for impeachment than calling out the president's attempt... and his ongoing practice of putting tax payer dollars, that is to say your money, in his pocket.  And that's an issue that particularly infuriates the Republican base.  It is the key to flipping Republican votes in the Senate, and yet, the impeachment inquiry that the speaker has supported, aside from being a year late, after she became the speaker, it also is unfortunately limited and we need to point some light at all of the president's acts of corruption, not just a single one." Oct 23

Moreover, "His acts that warrant impeachment extend beyond obstruction of justice, they extend beyond self-enrichment in office, they include lying to policy makers every time he opens his criminal mouth." 

Two days ago, "During which a number of incalculable costs have happened: families that have been separated at the border, mass shootings inspired by the president's rhetoric.  She also has limited the process, artificially, to exclude any evidence of the president's corruption in the form of emoluments violations, that is to say his putting tax payer funds in his pocket. umm.  My biggest concern about the impeachment inquiry is that at the same time that the speaker continues to rely on the findings of whistle blowers, she is unfortunately silencing others, and keeping members in congress in the dark about executive secrets that the public needs to know aaaaand I'm very eager to continue making that case as we run to replace her in the house."

Edited November 16, 2019 by MonDie

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

What you may be forgetting is all of the steps they’re documenting where he’s obstructing the cheating and refusing subpoenas. Those behaviors represent their own set of problems we’ll beyond just the ask made on the call. 

I think it is understandable given that it is in response to accusations that are so clearly partisan driven.

Exactly what you would expect of Trump, and given that, nothing to new see and nothing inconsistent with the "mandate" he felt he received when elected.

The Dems are, primarily, playing for political points. They have no one to blame but themselves if they lose that game after having elected to play it.

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The Dems are, primarily, playing for political points

This is not an issue limited to one side. 

Note that my previous comment above should’ve read “obstructing the Congress.” Autocorrect and proofreading fail on my side. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, iNow said:

This is not an issue limited to one side. 

Note that my previous comment above should’ve read “obstructing the Congress.” Autocorrect and proofreading fail on my side. 

Absolutely agree. But right now it is the Dems insisting there will be a game. Currently in fact they are the ones with the most control of the rules.

So if they lose you'll say hats off to Republicans? (surely not)

[iNow]

I don’t see any of this as about winning and losing. We’re all losing right now.

We’re focused on the reality tv bullshit instead of the things which truly matter in our lives and the lives of those we love.

Were not only shitting on our collective present, but on the future potential of our children.