Impeachment Hearings

[J.C.MacSwell]

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of "conflict of interest" and how these issues are normally navigated. Let's assume for a moment that the allegations are credible. A normal (assuming that this also means non-corrupt) President (or other person of power) who has a conflict of interest would step away from such investigation and would task the respective organization (e.g. DOJ) to run point. Ideally with someone heading the investigation who is sufficiently removed so that the investigation is not tainted by the conflict of interest. An example of a similar situation was appointing Robert Mueller, for example. Key point here is that one is removed from direct interference to resolve the conflict. Especially considering the scope of the Presidency, investigation of individuals is generally not something that a President would personally be involved in, instead the respective branches of law enforcement should have taken point (which they would not do, if there was no real reasons to do so...)

A number of things that you would not do would include for example:

- circumvent normal communication channels and get folks involved that are more loyal, but normally not part of the process 

- get folks involved that work for you directly (say, personal attorneys) and not for the organization you work for

- fire folks who warn you of a potential conflict of interest

- hide evidence for a conflict of interest.

- demand persecution of political rivals or persons connected to them, if there are investigations, they should be handled as independently as possible (see above, and also note the lack of interaction between the Obama WH and FBI).

 

As you can see, it is not an either or situation. There are, in fact, a lot of things one might do and many more things one should not do in cases of conflict. And you may take a guess or two to what Trump decided to do in this matter.

Sure. But is Trump legally obligated to avoid all conflicts of interest? I don't think he is. Why in particular would this be legally required in this case? (not saying you claimed it was but see below)

The Dems and Trump have been operating in bad faith with one another. So any expectation of anything more than what is legally required is unjustified. It's not the way it should be...but that is currently the way it is. You can high five Schiff and condemn Trump if you like, but there is no taking the high ground being displayed here.

Most here act like I'm on Trump's side. I've outlined his case, which is pretty much as I predicted it would be when the Zelensky call transcript came out. Not liking it doesn't make it an unacceptable defence. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary is needed for that.

 

6 minutes ago, rangerx said:

This has nothing to do with the discussion yet always lands at the end. There's a thread about that topic where you've abundantly posted yet brought it over here again and again. where you'll incessantly perpetuate the fallacy that the Dems are by default worse than the criminal running the place now.

Anything but the substance is what we expect from American Republicans in this matter. Yet when Canadians repeat that nonsense ad nauseam, it's obvious we're already down the tubes and it's the conservatives instilling it.

Conservatives would do well to clean up their own house before admonishing others. That's what's wrong with this continent.

From the OP...

On 11/14/2019 at 12:36 AM, MigL said:

Is anyone watching/following the Impeachment Hearings ?

Seems the 'quid pro quo', or bribery as the rest of us call it, was pretty blatant.
But I've been watching sporadically.

I'm not familiar with the 'path' from hearings to actual Impeachment.
What needs to happen to finally get rid of clown Donald ?

 

14 minutes ago, rangerx said:

This has nothing to do with the discussion yet always lands at the end. There's a thread about that topic where you've abundantly posted yet brought it over here again and again. where you'll incessantly perpetuate the fallacy that the Dems are by default worse than the criminal running the place now.

Anything but the substance is what we expect from American Republicans in this matter. Yet when Canadians repeat that nonsense ad nauseam, it's obvious we're already down the tubes and it's the conservatives instilling it.

Conservatives would do well to clean up their own house before admonishing others. That's what's wrong with this continent.

I understand why you might think that given your bias against opinions you don't agree with and your polarized thinking.

But for the record I have not suggested it, incessantly or otherwise.

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.

[geordief]

47 minutes ago, 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..

Tactics are unavoidable (motives are cloudy) but I would argue that for Congress not to have started impeachment proceedings would have been a dereliction of duty.

The hope is that the outcome will be favourable but  ,if not the forces of anti despotism * will live to fight again whereas ,if the ground was ceded without  firing a shot,the next battle would have been on weaker ground.

As for the Democrat candidate,they should pick whoever can gather most support in the electorate if they have to stand against Trump.

 

* I hope we can agree that this President is a wannabe despot.

Edited November 17, 2019 by geordief

[rangerx]

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I understand why you might think that given your bias against opinions you don't agree with and your polarized thinking.

I'm not the one suffixing every post with Dems do A so B must be true, but go ahead blame me for not spinning with your fallacy loop.

That's how Republicans do things nowadays. Turn a blind eye to the substance, except to blame others by it.

 

43 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

From the OP...

Last time I checked, it was MigL that stated that in the OP.

But go ahead, spin it to blame the left for that too.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, rangerx said:

 

Last time I checked, it was MigL that stated that in the OP.

But go ahead, spin it to blame the left for that too.

Wow. 

Where did I blame the left for MigL's question in his OP? 

You said my words had nothing to do with the discussion.

I pointed out that they were directly related to the OP.

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

[TheLuke]

What does this have to do with science? I know its a section but still. 

[iNow]

And now as for the actual topic and away from the childish bickering...

Sondland testifies this week. He’s basically  perjured himself and had to switch positions twice already, but he does have firsthand knowledge. 

1 minute ago, TheLuke said:

What does this have to do with science? I know its a section but still. 

Much like the religion subforum. We’re humans fist, so it comes up. Give it a home and it prevents contagion in other parts of the site. You’re under no obligation to participate or even pay attention. 

[TheLuke]

o no iNow please  do not think it was an attack. I just personally  deal with politics quite a bit and i did not expect it to come up.  BTW since were on the topic:

Edited November 17, 2019 by TheLuke

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Wow. 

Where did I blame the left for MigL's question in his OP? 

You said my words had nothing to do with the discussion.

I pointed out that they were directly related to the OP.

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

You inferred, then denied the inference. It's called gaslighting.

Conservatives loose their shit whenever there's a remote possibility someone might have breached constitutional or national security issues, but when they do it themselves, it's a nothing burger or a so what. The major thing worse than the allegations against the American president are the Republican's double standards floundering around them.

[TheLuke]

everyone has double standards  rangerx  whether it be trump and wiki leaks or this:

 

[rangerx]

To end the Watergate scandal. it was the Republicans who ousted Nixon.

No such introspect occurs in today's Republican caucus.

They've chosen the scorched earth tactic instead. Burn down every institution in the democracy to hop into bed with dictators and enemies.

It's disgraceful and shameful what they're doing to career diplomats, who are merely doing their jobs and reporting the facts based upon their observations.

But no, Republicans gotta fabricate dirt where none exists, no less while Ivanka and Don Jr. are flagrantly doing what they've erroneously accused Hunter Biden of having done.

[mistermack]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Claiming that H Biden's position was undeserved ,and due to nepotism, as his father is VP, is hypocritical.

It's stating the bleedin obvious really. Nobody in their right mind could believe his daddy's position had nothing to do with it. 

Proving it is another matter, you can be sure that the Bidens got the story straight, before they ran the scam. What Trump wanted was the investigation. The result didn't really matter as long as the mud sticks. I can't see the US floating voter buying the story that Hunter Biden was some sort of hot shot whose words of wisdom were worth millions to Ukrainians, with his daddy being vice president just being a coincidental detail. So long as Trump doesn't actually get kicked out, he'll probably come out ahead. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You inferred, then denied the inference. It's called gaslighting.

 

I'm sorry if I in any way assisted in getting you confused or questioning your own sanity. I assure you it was unintentional.

I think you can avoid this by concentrating on what is written instead of what you think I might "really mean".

19 minutes ago, rangerx said:

 The major thing worse than the allegations against the American president are the Republican's double standards floundering around them.

 ...and you see none of this with the Democrats?

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm sorry if I in any way assisted in getting you confused or questioning your own sanity. I assure you it was unintentional.

I think you can avoid this by concentrating on what is written instead of what you think I might "really mean".

 ...and you see none of this with the Democrats?

I read what you write. You get your digs in at every turn. Even in this bullshit apology, which is just your way equivocating around inferring I'm crazy.

It was intentional and you're still doing it.

Then you prove my point by spinning it back to the Democrats at the end.

Say anything to avoid the substance, is all you got.

[swansont]

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Here's the question; Since what Hunter Biden was doing was obviously suspicious,

Sorry, what? 

Please explain what was suspicious, before proceeding as if this was a given.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sorry, what? 

Please explain what was suspicious, before proceeding as if this was a given.

I think Mistermack put it quite eloquently:

15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's stating the bleedin obvious really. Nobody in their right mind could believe his daddy's position had nothing to do with it. 

Proving it is another matter, you can be sure that the Bidens got the story straight, before they ran the scam. What Trump wanted was the investigation. The result didn't really matter as long as the mud sticks. I can't see the US floating voter buying the story that Hunter Biden was some sort of hot shot whose words of wisdom were worth millions to Ukrainians, with his daddy being vice president just being a coincidental detail. So long as Trump doesn't actually get kicked out, he'll probably come out ahead. 

 

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think Mistermack put it quite eloquently:

If only they'd say that about Ivanka and Don Jr. they might garner some credibility, but no. They'd rather stick to the double standard.

The Biden story is an excuse. A straw to be grasped for the execution of criminal acts after the fact.

The guilty dog barks first. Trumps lies are in fact, admissions of his own misdeeds.

[swansont]

Of course his dad’s position had something to do with it. I asked how it was suspicious. Putting people with a “name” on corporate boards happens all the time.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Of course his dad’s position had something to do with it. I asked how it was suspicious. Putting people with a “name” on corporate boards happens all the time.

Already covered that.

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Here's the question; Since what Hunter Biden was doing was obviously suspicious, making it reasonable for Trump to ask for it to be investigated, is Trump obligated to not ask to have it looked into due to the fact Joe Biden is a main political opponent?

The counter argument would be that corruption in Washington is so rampant that the level of influence peddling as seen or perceived by the Biden's is never questioned, and so asking for investigation is clearly motivated solely by political motivation.

 

Your point is fine. That's why (in part) it falls into the category of suspicious and not indisputably corrupt.

It's still suspicious, and still obviously.

If you would like a political reference...

Yang hasn't condemned the Bidens, but believes much of this type of thing should end.

"it certainly has a bad look to it"

https://www.inquisitr.com/5662296/andrew-yang-biden-ukraine/

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/prevent-regulatory-capture-and-corruption/

Another Democrat candidates take:

Co-host Saagar Enjeti also noted Friday that many Democratic presidential candidates “have been very reluctant to call this out as evidence of corruption” and asked Gabbard if the allegations against Joe Biden indicate corruption.“I think the perception is certainly a concern,” Gabbard said. “I think we have to look at how we can root out the corruption of the abuse of power and influence within our government, and I think that there’s a lot of examples of it.”

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/tulsi-blasts-biden-ukraine-allegations-87996

I still think Mistermack's is the best!

"It's stating the bleedin obvious really. Nobody in their right mind could believe his daddy's position had nothing to do with it."

[iNow]

1 hour ago, TheLuke said:

iNow please  do not think it was an attack.

I didn’t. 
 

 

1 hour ago, TheLuke said:

BTW since were on the topic:

Ah. Yes. A video of Biden directly supporting US policy toward the country in partnership with EU allies to INCREASE inspections on the company where his son worked. You’re right. That’s EXACTLY the same as extorting a country to investigate a political ally for personal gain. So glad you shared. 

59 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Already covered that.

I’m trying to follow your argument, but I also am unsure what you think is suspicious here. I’ve read the quote from mistermack you’ve now posted 3x and still think you’re conflating suspicious with dumb

[J.C.MacSwell]

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

I’m trying to follow your argument, but I also am unsure what you think is suspicious here. I’ve read the quote from mistermack you’ve now posted 3x and still think you’re conflating suspicious with dumb

You don't find it suspicious, and furthermore, don't understand how others would see it that way?

See the quotes from Yang "It certainly has a bad look to it" and Gabbard: “I think the perception is certainly a concern,”

Heres Sanders reserving judgement: “I know I’m a little bit old-fashioned. I like to see the evidence before I talk about things. I read the papers and I read what I read... but I don’t know that I know enough at this point to make any definitive statement.”

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/bernie-wont-rule-out-questioning-hunter-biden-83411

I think you are conflating suspicious with certainty.

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think you are conflating suspicious with certainty.

What does this even mean, and why do you think that about me?

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

What does this even mean, and why do you think that about me?

You act like I'm accusing the Bidens of corruption. I did not. I said it was obviously suspicious. (it is)

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. 

Other evidence may clear Hunter Biden, or be inconclusive, but that doesn't change the fact that H. Bidens position in Ukraine is suspicious, or was to Trump at the time of the Zelensky call.

 

Why do you think Yang, Gabbard, and Sanders made the comments they did?

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why do you think Yang, Gabbard, and Sanders made the comments they did?

Because it looks bad, exactly as they said. Suspicion, however, carries with it a suggestion of broken laws, not just stupidity or questionable decision making. The connotation is that corruption was involved, not just poor judgment. Your quotes spoke of political optics, not legal suspicion. 
 

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Trump, saw it as suspicious. That is sufficient for him to ask that it be investigated. 

Other evidence may clear Hunter Biden, or be inconclusive, but that doesn't change the fact that H. Bidens position in Ukraine is suspicious, or was to Trump at the time of the Zelensky call.

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.

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Because it looks bad, exactly as they said. Suspicion, however, carries with it a suggestion of broken laws, not just stupidity or questionable decision making. The connotation is that corruption was involved, not just poor judgment. Your quotes spoke of political optics, not legal suspicion. 
 

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.

What you claim to be facts are in dispute; However, if they are true they should certainly come out during the impeachment inquiry.

If evidence for them does not come out clearly and definitively...you really can't claim them as facts.

 

[iNow]

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