impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

My very liberal wife watched some of the hearing highlights before bed last night.   She thought things went very bad for the Democrats.  

[jimmyjazz 46,097]

50 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Which isn’t remotely related to what I said. For the 10,000th time Trump is a moron.  He isn’t smart enough to play puppet master to foreign countries doing his bidding. 

That's an interesting take.  "He's too stupid to be played by the smart guys."

I'm not really sure that holds up to scrutiny, but Benghazi!

[DigglerontheHoof 21,212]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

My very liberal wife watched some of the hearing highlights before bed last night.   She thought things went very bad for the Democrats.  

Stupid shit your wife said thread is that way --------->

J/K...kinda

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

57 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Which isn’t remotely related to what I said. For the 10,000th time Trump is a moron.  He isn’t smart enough to play puppet master to foreign countries doing his bidding.  There are allegedly dozens of issues that are impeachment worthy, this one isn’t going to get it done.

Whether Trump is a moron is irrelevant. Walter Shaub says it much more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could but to put it plainly:

That is it in a nutshell. We, the People, cannot allow a President to abuse power in this manner. That Trump has done so over all arenas, makes a mockery of our country's Constitution.

[Tom 2,959]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Which isn’t remotely related to what I said. For the 10,000th time Trump is a moron.  He isn’t smart enough to play puppet master to foreign countries doing his bidding.  There are allegedly dozens of issues that are impeachment worthy, this one isn’t going to get it done.

 

Okay, so you're going with the Graham defense.  That it's okay if Trump breaks any laws because he's just dumb and we should all just move on? A defense which entirely ignores the damage and erosion of trust towards the U.S. and our foreign policy in the future regardless of if it's successful now?  That it wouldn't have worked -- something you have no idea about because if not for the whistle blower, we might be having a different conversation today with the country focused entirely on a Biden conspiracy. 

What would Trump actually have to do for you to finally give in and believe he should be held accountable for his actions?  I hope you realize the precedent the GOP is setting for the country about presidents being completely above accountability and the law.  Because the next one that tries to pull Trump's nonsense likely will not be as dumb and inexperienced, and it very well may be a Democrat instead of a Republican.  And then while you're pulling your hair out asking how such obvious corruption and attempts to dismantle our democracy can go unchecked, you can think back to today when you and the entire GOP decided to be cowards rather than patriots more concerned with protecting your party's leader than your country.

 

9 hours ago, bolverk said:

Be forthright and honest -- if you have it in you. In your opinion, does Trump deserve impeachment? Take a stand or shut the fuck up with your cowardly drive-by comments.

 

And @Incredulity still has not answered this very simple question.  Without deflecting about whether or not it will matter or where the votes will fall, does Trump DESERVE to be impeached?  It's a yes or no question.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Tom

[Incredulity 11,682]

1 hour ago, Tom said:

 

Okay, so you're going with the Graham defense.  That it's okay if Trump breaks any laws because he's just dumb and we should all just move on? A defense which entirely ignores the damage and erosion of trust towards the U.S. and our foreign policy in the future regardless of if it's successful now?  That it wouldn't have worked -- something you have no idea about because if not for the whistle blower, we might be having a different conversation today with the country focused entirely on a Biden conspiracy. 

What would Trump actually have to do for you to finally give in and believe he should be held accountable for his actions?  I hope you realize the precedent the GOP is setting for the country about presidents being completely above accountability and the law.  Because the next one that tries to pull Trump's nonsense likely will not be as dumb and inexperienced, and it very well may be a Democrat instead of a Republican.  And then while you're pulling your hair out asking how such obvious corruption and attempts to dismantle our democracy can go unchecked, you can think back to today when you and the entire GOP decided to be cowards rather than patriots more concerned with protecting your party's leader than your country.

 

 

And @Incredulity still has not answered this very simple question.  Without deflecting about whether or not it will matter or where the votes will fall, does Trump DESERVE to be impeached?  It's a yes or no question.

The ambiguity in the very definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" makes it NOT a simple yes or no question.  Why won't Democrats answer simple yes or no questions at their debates anymore, hmmm...

In regards to President's and accountability...I have made no argument that Trump shouldn't be impeached, that is purely the prerogative of Congress.  

[DixonHur 11,362]

8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The ambiguity in the very definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" makes it NOT a simple yes or no question.  Why won't Democrats answer simple yes or no questions at their debates anymore, hmmm...

In regards to President's and accountability...I have made no argument that Trump shouldn't be impeached, that is purely the prerogative of Congress.  

What were your thoughts on the Clinton impeachment?  Were you for or against?  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

I don’t understand the argument of the right.  Even they agree Trump attempted to use his presidential power to bribe Ukraine with $400m to at least announce an investigation into Biden.  Of course he was unsuccessful because almost everything with him is unsuccessful. Are we ok if Presidents abusing their power as long as they fail?

[Pig Bellmont 8,724]

20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The ambiguity in the very definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" makes it NOT a simple yes or no question.  

There’s no ambiguity in “bribery”, which is exactly what happened. It really can’t be more simple 

[Dahobbs 17,655]

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

My very liberal wife watched some of the hearing highlights before bed last night.   She thought things went very bad for the Democrats.  

Why? I am actually curious, because I dont understand how any rational person could walk away from yesterday not thinking that Trump was guilty as shit. Did she not find the witnesses credible? Or was she somehow drawn to the Republicans yelling tactic? 

[bolverk 29,708]

36 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Why won't Democrats you answer simple yes or no questions?

hmmm...

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,797]

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

14 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don’t understand the argument of the right.  Even they agree Trump attempted to use his presidential power to bribe Ukraine with $400m to at least announce an investigation into Biden.  Of course he was unsuccessful because almost everything with him is unsuccessful. Are we ok if Presidents abusing their power as long as they fail?

No!

It really boils down to this country becoming Shawshank writ large wherein it isn't just that the warden and his minions have to be bribed, but that the warden has the power as to whether you live or die.

[David Dennison 18,945]

22 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don’t understand the argument of the right.  Even they agree Trump attempted to use his presidential power to bribe Ukraine with $400m to at least announce an investigation into Biden.  Of course he was unsuccessful because almost everything with him is unsuccessful. Are we ok if Presidents abusing their power as long as they fail?

They are OK with presidents abusing their power as long as their base supports the abuse of power at a 90% clip.

 

[Biff Tannen 45,712]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

No!

It really boils down to this country becoming Shawshank writ large wherein it isn't just that the warden and his minions have to be bribed, but that the warden has the power as to whether you live or die.

So are we Tommy in this analogy?  Who is Andy?

[EMAWesome 101]

3 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

So it doesn't concern you that after the Reps let Trump off the hook, he will continue to coerce foreign governments to do his bidding over the interests of the U. S.? 

 

If so, step back and, literally, fuck your own face. 

There is not one witness who has offered first hand evidence of a crime.  Everyone is saying they heard something from somebody about something somebody else said.  Meanwhile there has been video of Biden bragging about withholding aid until a prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired his son was fired and not one of you gives a rat's ass about it.  You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,212]

2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

There is not one witness who has offered first hand evidence of a crime.  Everyone is saying they heard something from somebody about something somebody else said.  Meanwhile there has been video of Biden bragging about withholding aid until a prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired his son was fired and not one of you gives a rat's ass about it.  You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

 

For my response, I refer you to the last sentence in my post you quoted. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by DigglerontheHoof

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:

There is not one witness who has offered first hand evidence of a crime.  Everyone is saying they heard something from somebody about something somebody else said.  Meanwhile there has been video of Biden bragging about withholding aid until a prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired his son was fired and not one of you gives a rat's ass about it.  You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

You’re actually right so far. Trump has been smart enough to not allow the people with first hand knowledge to testify. He’s hiding behind exec privilege.

but I’m not sure Sondland won’t be that person. He seems to have spoken directly with trump. And now we’ve learned about a call that Sondland has previously not disclosed. Either Taylor was wrong or Sondland may be in trouble in lying to Congress.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,820]

2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

There is not one witness who has offered first hand evidence of a crime.  Everyone is saying they heard something from somebody about something somebody else said.  Meanwhile there has been video of Biden bragging about withholding aid until a prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired his son was fired and not one of you gives a rat's ass about it.  You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

There haven't been any first-hand witnesses, because the white house is blocking them from answering the subpoenas.  Would you be satisfied if the President just went before the committee and answered their questions under oath?  Because that would really clear all this up.  Previous presidents did it.  

[achooloco 1,076]

4 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

There is not one witness who has offered first hand evidence of a crime.  Everyone is saying they heard something from somebody about something somebody else said.  Meanwhile there has been video of Biden bragging about withholding aid until a prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired his son was fired and not one of you gives a rat's ass about it.  You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

Fuck you, sit on this, fuck your family. 

[David Dennison 18,945]

5 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

There is not one witness who has offered first hand evidence of a crime.  Everyone is saying they heard something from somebody about something somebody else said.  Meanwhile there has been video of Biden bragging about withholding aid until a prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired his son was fired and not one of you gives a rat's ass about it.  You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

That is still evidence of a crime, even in a court of law.

What will your excuse be when Vindman testifies?

Edited November 14, 2019 by David Dennison

[Lurch 5,931]

Remember when Ema claimed circumstantial evidence wasn’t admissible in court?

That’s who you’re arguing with about first hand knowledge. Lost cause.

[Biff Tannen 45,712]

Not sure why y'all engage.  I had a whole response typed out and then thought better of it.  You may as well be presenting facts to a brick wall.

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

9 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

There is not one witness who has offered first hand evidence of a crime.  Everyone is saying they heard something from somebody about something somebody else said.  Meanwhile there has been video of Biden bragging about withholding aid until a prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired his son was fired and not one of you gives a rat's ass about it.  You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

One witness has offered first hand evidence of a crime.  Trump did when he released the summary of the call.  

[Pig Bellmont 8,724]

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So are we Tommy in this analogy?  Who is Andy?

You decide. There's always Red: "Let me tell you something my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane."

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45,712]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

You decide. There's always Red: "Let me tell you something my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane."

 

 

I'd say Brisket is Red.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Now every time Brisket posts I'm reading them with Morgan Freeman's voice.

Speaking of actors, someone on social media nominated Ed Norton to play the Kent fellow when an Impeachment movie comes out. An excellent choice I thought.

[Dahobbs 17,655]

17 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

There is not one witness who has offered first hand evidence of a crime.  Everyone is saying they heard something from somebody about something somebody else said.  Meanwhile there has been video of Biden bragging about withholding aid until a prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired his son was fired and not one of you gives a rat's ass about it.  You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

Well, except he wasnt investigating Hunter Biden, he was supposed to be pursuing Burisma for conduct that occurred prior to Hunter's involvement with the company. We (including Republicans) wanted him fired because he wasnt pursuing that investigation, among others. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,521]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That is still evidence of a crime, even in a court of law.

What will your excuse be when Vindman testifies?

When Vindman or Sondland testify, they will be accused of lying. It’s that simple.

 

[Chad Fuck 17,743]

 

You know who isn’t shocked?

Every other nations spy agencies.

[Biff Tannen 45,712]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Well, except he wasnt investigating Hunter Biden, he was supposed to be pursuing Burisma for conduct that occurred prior to Hunter's involvement with the company. We (including Republicans) wanted him fired because he wasnt pursuing that investigation, among others. 

GTFO with your facts.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,522]

Now every time Brisket posts I'm reading them with Morgan Freeman's voice.

I read them in Gilbert Gottfried’s voice because that’s what Brisket sounds like in real life, which is weird, because he looks like Idris Elba except Filipino.

[Biff Tannen 45,712]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I read them in Gilbert Gottfried’s voice because that’s what Brisket sounds like in real life, which is weird, because he looks like Idris Elba except Filipino.

You just changed my life.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

IDRIS ELBA YOU SAY?????

 

How you doin’,@Brisketexan ?

 

[Brisketexan 105,275]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I read them in Gilbert Gottfried’s voice because that’s what Brisket sounds like in real life, which is weird, because he looks like Idris Elba except Filipino.

I should neg you.  Because I SOUND like Idris....but I look more like Gilbert.  Motherfucker.....

[DigglerontheHoof 21,212]

I'm struggling to picture a Cajican Gilbrert Gottfred. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19,428]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I should neg you.  Because I SOUND like Idris....but I look more like Gilbert.  Motherfucker.....

Really more of an Al Gore after a 6 month bender of deep dish pizza washed down with Ensure Plus and whisky. 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,550]

There is not one witness who has offered first hand evidence of a crime.  Everyone is saying they heard something from somebody about something somebody else said.  Meanwhile there has been video of Biden bragging about withholding aid until a prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired his son was fired and not one of you gives a rat's ass about it.  You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

Don't forget Giuliani who's been bragging about what he's been doing in Ukraine for the last year, digging up dirt on Joe Biden with the help of Ukraine's finest corruption artists, Viktor Shokin, Konstantin Kulyk, Yuri Lutsenko and Dymtro Firtash. Throw in the assistance of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman of Fraud Guarantee who've paid Giuliani over $500K and are now being indicted for campaign contribution violations and are knee deep in the efforts to remove the former Ambassador to Ukraine.  

That's directly from the "camel's" mouth.

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89,778]

44 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why? I am actually curious, because I dont understand how any rational person could walk away from yesterday not thinking that Trump was guilty as shit. Did she not find the witnesses credible? Or was she somehow drawn to the Republicans yelling tactic? 

Show her 5 minutes of Goldman asking questions and follow-up questions, and then show her 5 minutes of Castor reading off of his script.  Throw in some Ratcliffe as well.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Just now, DigglerontheHoof said:

I'm struggling to picture a Cajican Gilbrert Gottfred. 

Thank you, for mentioning Cajun. Back when I was a lurker on TOS, I got the impression Brisket was Cajun so I was picturing a shorter, darker complected Harry Connick, Jr. It went with the lawyer image I had in my mind.

[TexArcher 38,029]

3 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Dude, turn off MSNBC and take a walk or something.  Everything is going to be ok.  

Congress decides whats impeachable by definition.  I don’t think this was the hill to die on.  After this party line exercise it just makes any further effort to impeach exponentially harder.

If your satisfied with a symbolic effort then congratulations, you got it.

 

Wait.  You don't think that bribing the leader of a foreign government to get a political favor is impeachable?  The Constitution specifically says, "treason, bribery, and other high crimes" when it outlines impeachment.

And when Trump withheld federal aid in this bribery, he also subverted the Constitution and the Separation of Powers.  Congress spends the money and Congress voted to send that aid to Ukraine.  Trump should probably be impeached for withholding the aid at all, even if it hadn't been to get a political favor in return.  But it obviously was.

So the only way you can possibly argue that this isn't impeachable is if you think this doesn't count as bribery.  Is that what you're saying?

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

57 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why? I am actually curious, because I dont understand how any rational person could walk away from yesterday not thinking that Trump was guilty as shit. Did she not find the witnesses credible? Or was she somehow drawn to the Republicans yelling tactic? 

I think it was a reflection of the fact that she isn’t steeped in the issues.  For someone like that, there was a decided lack of clarity. 

[atomheartbevo 89,778]

28 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

When Vindman or Sondland testify, they will be accused of lying. It’s that simple.

The image of Republicans attacking Vindman in uniform, and they will, will be fun.

[Anastasis 23,481]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

The image of Republicans attacking Vindman in uniform, and they will, will be fun.

Can I get a line on him not testifying in an impeachment inquiry in uniform?

[Tuco 5,077]

3 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

My very liberal wife watched some of the hearing highlights before bed last night.   She thought things went very bad for the Democrats.  

In the interest of keeping score, I recommend the following: make a list of the 20 second sound bites and one liners that get carried over to the evening news and late night talk shows, and to which side they played better for.  For yesterday, my score card would look like:

Good Dem: 

"I would be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify."

The general credibility and demeanor of the witnesses. (And yes, that comes across in a 20 second clip.)  

Revelation that one of Taylor's staff overhead Sondland talking to Trump.  (Although I am very worried about how the credibility of this stands up, and I'm not sure how damning it is, it still made headlines.) 

Bad Dem:

Castro's painful attempted murder questioning. Pretty much any time the witness is bemused with the idiocy of the question, it's not a good start. 

Good Rep

Jordan's establishing that they didn't have first hand knowledge of Trump's actions.  (It's irrelevant to what they were testifying on, the effects and goofiness of the Rudy Ukrainian policy, but it was a simple soundbite that 'pubs are running with, and will be effective on LIVs.) 

Bad Rep

Lawyer's "it could have been more outlandish".  Once again, Taylor's response showed how stupid the question was, and the oddity of the question gave airtime to the fact that this was not normal diplomacy. 

David Nunes.  Pretty much any time he speaks on camera.  

 

In total, I think it was a good day for the Democrats.  It's not a day that will win impeachment votes in the House or removal votes in the Senate.  But that is a pipe dream.  They are pressing a wedge issue for the election.  Congressional candidates have to either side with Trump or side against him.  It's a given that it is more damaging for Republicans to oppose him, but the hearings can up the damage for supporting him. In chess, it's a queen-bishop fork; the Dems aren't going to get the queen, but picking up a bishop ain't bad. 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Tuco

[jimmyjazz 46,097]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think it was a reflection of the fact that she isn’t steeped in the issues.  For someone like that, there was a decided lack of clarity. 

Wouldn't that lead her to be critical of both the Democrats *and* the Republicans?  

I'm not saying you didn't see what you saw, but if I try to be as objective as I can, it sure seemed to me that one side was trying to do nothing but deflect, and that wasn't the Democrats.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6,559]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I should neg you.  Because I SOUND like Idris....but I look more like Gilbert.  Motherfucker.....

The Wire Idris or real life British Idris?

[DDD Dad 14,347]

32 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I read them in Gilbert Gottfried’s voice because that’s what Brisket sounds like in real life, which is weird, because he looks like Idris Elba except Filipino.

Wait wut?

[DDD Dad 14,347]

I happened to catch the late news on DFW NBC 5 last night.  They had the absolute worst coverage of yesterday.  A clip of Ratcliffe badgering Taylor, and then a clip of about 5 seconds of Julian Castro in the middle of a "question." 

Absolutely no substance.