impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

Arguing whether quid pro quo actually occurred or not, is a ridiculous argument anyway.  At least when it comes to impeachment.  Impeachment isn’t a criminal process but rather a political one.  It’s up to congress to decide what is and isn’t an impeachable offense.  It’s not held to any review or standard other than congress has to answer to the public in the next election.

a president abusing his office for his political gain is a gray area. In many ways, all politicians use their office to help their campaigns.   However using 100s of millions of taxpayer money to attempt to dig up dirt on an opponent, isn’t very gray.  Trump abused his powers for personal gain.   And just because he was too inept to be successful doesn’t change that fact. 

[4th&Five 41571]

Don't tell anyone about this perfect phone call!

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

13 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Don't tell anyone about this perfect phone call!

 

Thinking about this morning how much of the news is focused on proving the actions were wrong.  Here, circumstantial evidence of knowledge of guilt.  Yesterday's went the other way with testimony that the dude said he "didn't think anything was concerning" about the call.

With Watergate, you had a break-in.  Something people could point to and say that was wrong and it was understandable at the 2nd grade level. 

D's have a lot harder job this time than in the 70s.

[Red Five 40877]

Which is why they should stop focusing 100% on "the call". 

[DigglerontheHoof 21208]

29 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Don't tell anyone about this perfect phone call!

 

IF Trump gets got, it's going to be because of the cover up.  It's always the cover up. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

6 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Which is why they should stop focusing 100% on "the call". 

i’d like them to start going after the server. 

does anyone think it’s empty other than the ukraine call?

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i’d like them to start going after the server. 

does anyone think it’s empty other than the ukraine call?

I think it has an out of order sign:

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I think it has an out of order sign:

i think it probably has a note on it that says "secret".  but not like, "top secret" because that might make it obvious.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

I don't know the nuts and bolts of how this type of thing is done, so I can't answer your original question. It isn't a call, per se, if I understood it right those are not literally recorded? So if it's a transcript, what is to stop someone from making a copy as assurance/insurance-whichever word for CYA is appropriate? Besides the fact that it might be in violation of national security, could it be done? Was it done? Is it still there? There are so many little factions running around the WH and you have people who are true by-the-book kind of people, the sneaky people, the spy people, the criminals, the people who put country before party (who may or may not be by-the-book people as well) and the people who put party before country or self before everyone. That's a lot of people, and everyone seems to know about the server but IIRC only a few have access.

So, yeah, it's probably the one thing many folks would like to know. That what Trump did was wrong should  not be in dispute, but to his team's strategic credit, issuing that memo and then immediately calling it a "transcript" was brilliant. With it being amplified on Twitter, Fox, everywhere, Barr and Co. probably had a big hand in that, IMO.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

He’s going to lose this fight because shifty Schiff and nervous Nancy are weak nicknames and “perfect call” is too dumb even for his base to repeat.  

[Thetexashammer 1062]

5 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Trump abused his powers for personal gain.   And just because he was too inept to be successful doesn’t change that fact. 

To be clear, the principle your are enumerating is this - "A president should not use the resources of his office for personal political benefit". Do I restate your position correctly? And if they do so, it is completely outrageous and they should be impeached?

Edited November 1, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Lurch 5931]

I smell an incoming “But, Obama!”

Will it pay off? Let’s watch...

[henrygandorf 29194]

8 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

To be clear, the principle your are enumerating is this - "A president should not use the resources of his office for personal political benefit". Do I restate your position correctly? And if they do so, it is completely outrageous and they should be impeached?

by "resources of his office" do you mean congressional-approved aid to a foreign ally?

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

Don't tell anyone about this perfect phone call!

 

this is actually a bigger development than people are giving it credit for.

having a wh counsel instruct someone to "not discuss" a call he already found problematic (and is on the record pushing back on) shows signs of obstruction and/or a cover-up.

"we knew it was really bad and that's why we tried to hide it" is what gets you in like 3 kinds of trouble.

[JimmyJames 12271]

13 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

To be clear, the principle your are enumerating is this - "A president should not use the resources of his office for personal political benefit". Do I restate your position correctly? And if they do so, it is completely outrageous and they should be impeached?

Is this an act or are you truly this stupid? Did I ask my question correctly?

[jimmyjazz 46002]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

this is actually a bigger development than people are giving it credit for.

having a wh counsel instruct someone to "not discuss" a call he already found problematic (and is on the record pushing back on) shows signs of obstruction and/or a cover-up.

"we knew it was really bad and that's why we tried to hide it" is what gets you in like 3 kinds of trouble.

Yeah, John Dean didn't serve 4 months and get disbarred for burglary.  As is often said around here, the cover-up is worse than the crime.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Is this an act or are you truly this stupid? Did I ask my question correctly?

 

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

by "resources of his office" do you mean congressional-approved aid to a foreign ally?

So if you direct an investigation towards a political opponent, you should probably be impeached? Say, if you use the IRS to target your opponents?

Edited November 1, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Thetexashammer said:

 

So if you direct an investigation towards a political opponent, you should probably be impeached? 

You didn’t answer my question.

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

So if you direct an investigation towards a political opponent, you should probably be impeached? 

you didn't answer my question either.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

you didn't answer my question either.

I don't think which resource is used inappropriately is important. The issue is that you are using government power for personal gain. A president has lots of different resources which are capable of being abused. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[henrygandorf 29194]

4 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

I don't think which resource is used inappropriately is important. The issue is that you are using government power for personal gain. A president has lots of different resources which are capable of being abused. 

so then you agree that he abused his power here?

we can get into the difference between holding up appropriated funds and actual tools of govt later, but i think you should go ahead and get on the record here.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Which is exact why trump should be impeached. Its very simple. He is using his position in the office for personal gain, namely withholding hundreds of millions of dollars that are not his money for personal gain while at the same time putting national security and in fact our entire democracy at stake, risking despotism.

You trump supporters who claim you don’t support him are the worst. Not only extremely stupid and naive, and liars who support a liar, but also unwittingly evil. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by JimmyJames

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

I don't think which resource is used inappropriately. The issue is that you are using government power for personal gain. A president has lots of different resources which are capable of being abused. 

I eat cheese. Because I like to eat cheese. I bet sometimes trump eats cheese also. What say you?

[Lurch 5931]

I eat cheese. Because I like to eat cheese. I bet sometimes trump eats cheese also. What say you?

Worst. Turing. Test. Ever.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so then you agree that he abused his power here?

we can get into the difference between holding up appropriated funds and actual tools of govt later, but i think you should go ahead and get on the record here.

No, I agree that in principle, a president should not use the powers of the office for personal political gain. There was no quid pro quo, obviously, but you can keep going down that path for as long as you want. 

Do you agree with that principle or not? I certainly do.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

you guys are no match against the texas hammer

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

No, I agree that in principle, a president should not use the powers of the office for personal political gain. There was no quid pro quo, obviously, but you can keep going down that path for as long as you want. 

Do you agree with that principle or not? I certainly do.

the path is short.  it's been corroborated by several people including trump, his personal atty, and his chief of staff.  approved aid was held up pending the ukranian president's confirmation that he would open an investigation into the biden family/burisma.  i'm not arguing a proven point.

now that we know that has happened, do you agree it's an abuse of power or not?  you can say he shouldn't have done it, but it's not impeachable.  you can say yeah, it's not ideal, but if you want him out, there's an election in 12 months.  these are a couple examples of what the republicans have reverted to, since literally zero of them are disputing the facts anymore.

maybe you haven't gotten the latest gop talking points email, because you're still talking about quid pro quos.  i'm shocked you're not questioning the veracity of the whistleblower.  of course you were also way behind when we discussed the initial conversation, the transcript, the server, etc.  maybe we should wait a week then continue this conversation?

[Thetexashammer 1062]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the path is short.  it's been corroborated by several people including trump, his personal atty, and his chief of staff.  approved aid was held up pending the ukranian president's confirmation that he would open an investigation into the biden family/burisma.  i'm not arguing a proven point.

now that we know that has happened, do you agree it's an abuse of power or not?  you can say he shouldn't have done it, but it's not impeachable.  you can say yeah, it's not ideal, but if you want him out, there's an election in 12 months.  these are a couple examples of what the republicans have reverted to, since literally zero of them are disputing the facts anymore.

maybe you haven't gotten the latest gop talking points email, because you're still talking about quid pro quos.  i'm shocked you're not questioning the veracity of the whistleblower.  of course you were also way behind when we discussed the initial conversation, the transcript, the server, etc.  maybe we should wait a week then continue this conversation?

So explain why Obama should not have been impeached when he was spying on the Trump campaign. The political motivation is obvious and the facts are undisputed. We was clearly using his presidential resources for personal benefit.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[henrygandorf 29194]

4 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

So explain why Obama should not have been impeached when he was spying on the Trump campaign. The political motivation is obvious and the facts are undisputed. We was clearly using his presidential resources for personal benefit.

all this just to say "but obama" again?  really?

ok, sure.  explain how the two situations are similar.  i'll wait here.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

all this just to say "but obama" again?  really?

ok, sure.  explain how the two situations are similar.  i'll wait here.

The aren't similar, they're identical. Obama politically benefitted from the investigation. How is that not an abuse of power? It's not really a complicated question, it has a very easy answer.

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The aren't similar, they're identical. Obama politically benefitted from the investigation. How is that not an abuse of power? It's not really a complicated question, it has a very easy answer.

is this when trump ran in 2012?  i'm gonna need more details here.

[CowboyFred 1151]

2 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

The aren't similar, they're identical. Obama politically benefitted from the investigation. How is that not an abuse of power? It's not really a complicated question, it has a very easy answer.

1. How did Obama benefit politically?

2. This article from May is a fairly good and quick summary of your "spying" claim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/06/whats-evidence-spying-trumps-campaign-heres-your-guide/

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, CowboyFred said:

1. How did Obama benefit politically?

Obama was looking for dirt so he could kill Trump's campaign.  Trump was a political opponent, in case you forgot.

 

[CowboyFred 1151]

lol looking for dirt?  These fools were fraternizing with known Russian oligarchs and criminals in public view.  Meetings, dinner parties, "campaign events", etc.  The writing was on the wall that shady shit was afoot and the several indictments that came down and the ones pending are proof.  

if you're going to troll, at least put some effort...sheesh.

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Obama was looking for dirt so he could kill Trump's campaign.  Trump was a political opponent, in case you forgot.

 

wow that jimmy kimmel clip really blows the case wide open.

i guess it was just a bummer for trump (before and after he beat obama in the election) that the house and senate weren't controlled by republicans, or someone really could've taken a hard look at this.

[mdmost 43013]

The backbends by hammer here are quite impressive. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, CowboyFred said:

lol looking for dirt?  These fools were fraternizing with known Russian oligarchs and criminals in public view.  Meetings, dinner parties, "campaign events", etc.  The writing was on the wall that shady shit was afoot and the several indictments that came down and the ones pending are proof.  

if you're going to troll, at least put some effort...sheesh.

So while Obama did benefit, the reason it's OK is that it was a legitimate investigation? 

In other words, sometimes as part of your official and legitimate duties as president, you may be called on to undertake actions that appear to be personally beneficial. And if you are carrying out your duty as President, that would overcome your presumption that it is being done for personal benefit.

We agree 100%.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, mdmost said:

The backbends by hammer here are quite impressive. 

i used to think that all republicans got on the same page by reading the same bullet points, articles, watching videos, having conversations, aligning views, etc.  but now i know there's a list:

1. don't ever answer any direct question

end of list.

[BradInATX 9208]

You all are playing right into his little equivocation trap. He knows he can't hang in a fact-based discussion so he's playing the only card he has which is to obfuscate and confuse with a bunch of Alex Jones talking points. Don't feed him. You're never going to get a good faith discussion from him.

 

 

[CowboyFred 1151]

Just now, Thetexashammer said:

So while Obama did benefit, the reason it's OK is that it was a legitimate investigation? 

In other words, sometimes as part of your official and legitimate duties as president, you may be called on to undertake actions that appear to be personally beneficial. And if you are carrying out your duty as President, that would overcome your presumption that it is being done for personal benefit.

We agree 100%.

So what benefit did Obama get?  He was an outgoing president.  The FBI opened the investigation into Pappadopolus (don't care how its spelled) after a tip from the Australian government.  you know what you're probably right.  Obama told them to do it.

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

So while Obama did benefit, the reason it's OK is that it was a legitimate investigation? 

how did he benefit?

2 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

In other words, sometimes as part of your official and legitimate duties as president, you may be called on to undertake actions that appear to be personally beneficial. And if you are carrying out your duty as President, that would overcome your presumption that it is being done for personal benefit.

so withholding appropriated funds from congress is part of his legit duties as president?

[mdmost 43013]

5 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

In other words, sometimes as part of your official and legitimate duties as president, you may be called on to undertake actions that appear to be illegal. And if you are carrying out your duty as President, that would overcome your presumption that it is being done for personal benefit.

We agree 100%.

FIFY

In other words, you're fine with the illegal actions Trump took because he's your team and but Obama. 

Edited November 2, 2019 by mdmost

[Thetexashammer 1062]

 

Just now, CowboyFred said:

So what benefit did Obama get?  He was an outgoing president.  The FBI opened the investigation into Pappadopolus (don't care how its spelled) after a tip from the Australian government.  you know what you're probably right.  Obama told them to do it.

He got an investigation aimed at damaging his political rival. Exactly the same thing Trump was seeking.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, mdmost said:

FIFY

In other words, you're fine with the illegal actions Trump took because he's your team and but Obama. 

What was illegal? I've asked that question over and over and nobody answers it. A couple of times people referred to an "illegal campaign contribution" but that's nonsense. 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

He got an investigation aimed at damaging his political rival. Exactly the same thing Trump was seeking.

pretty sure obama is trump's political rival only in trump's gigantic melon-head.

[BradInATX 9208]

 
He got an investigation aimed at damaging his political rival. Exactly the same thing Trump was seeking.

Look at him. He's equivocating our own FBI with a foreign government. The more you engage his bottom of the barrel dreck the less likely he is to go away.

[bolverk 29702]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

You all are playing right into his little equivocation trap. He knows he can't hang in a fact-based discussion so he's playing the only card he has which is to obfuscate and confuse with a bunch of Alex Jones talking points. Don't feed him.

No shit. Just point and laugh at the stupid motherfucker. He's only a tool. Kinda like a...

 

 

 

 

wait for it...

 

 

 

 

hammer

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

What was illegal? I've asked that question over and over and nobody answers it. A couple of times people referred to an "illegal campaign contribution" but that's nonsense. 

abuse of power, obstruction of justice, obstruction of congress, blackmail, bribery.  not to mention tax and insurance fraud.  but those last two are unrelated to the ukraine call, so i guess we'll deal with them later.

[mdmost 43013]

I really want to picture hammer at his keyboard screaming with his fist in the air "BUT OBAMA"!!!!!

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

15 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:

if you're going to troll, at least put some effort...sheesh.

Why? The buffet is open and he's feasting.