impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[RomaVicta 29953]

5 hours ago, Jiggy-Z said:

I am in the same boat.

Ronny was a God to me.  Although, at the time he was first elected President, I was only in 8th grade and by November of '84 I was not yet able to vote. I was young impressionable and manipulated by my parents.

But more than that, at the time, we had just gotten out of 'nam ('75), had been through 2 gas shortages, 20% interest rates, hostages in Iran, and Manhattan was burning nightly.  Carter was a good guy and a smart guy but seemed powerless in light of the conditions.

Reagan came along with his slick speech, down home letters,  and his balanced California budget, and it seemed like the second coming of FDR except as a Republican.

Really, without saying it, his slogan was MAGA. Except that he was actually somewhat competent, although lazy, and despite his other flaws, was a leader. His administrations still reverberate today for better or worse. 

So aside from the "deplorables" , there is still a sizable number of people my age and mostly older, that cannot shake this influence. It is like a religion they were taught as children that still holds sway over them.  Despite having the entirety of world history at their fingertips and more than enough time to explore they chose to be lazy and have their thoughts dictated to them.  

 

I cannot tell you how much it means to me to see a fellow citizen write this. Had Reagan actually stood for what he talked about, he would have embodied the traditional values that made the GOP valuable. Instead, he was the smiling, avuncular face stretched across the first iteration of the hate engine. He was perfect for that role. I doubt he ever knew that's what he was.

In the Reagan presidency, the cancer of Rush Limbaugh spread through the land. George HW was more of a pragmatist and he got swept away. After that, a useful moron and a demagogue who snuck up and seized the reins of the hate engine.

And here we are. A small parade of brilliant, principled government professionals speak truth to us. What does the republic do?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I cannot tell you how much it means to me to see a fellow citizen write this. Had Reagan actually stood for what he talked about, he would have embodied the traditional values that made the GOP valuable. Instead, he was the smiling, avuncular face stretched across the first iteration of the hate engine. He was perfect for that role. I doubt he ever knew that's what he was.

In the Reagan presidency, the cancer of Rush Limbaugh spread through the land. George HW was more of a pragmatist and he got swept away. After that, a useful moron and a demagogue who snuck up and seized the reins of the hate engine.

And here we are. A small parade of brilliant, principled government professionals speak truth to us. What does the republic do?

The republic folds. - Mitch McConnell 1/12/2020

[Bruh Man 3160]

You know what's missing? A huge march on Washington. 

Seriously, a day after the inauguration there was a huge one but since then...not much. 

There needs to be a public showing of support for impeachment and removal to put some heat on these senators. 

Other countries citizens march for much less. I wish we'd get in the streets and DO SOMETHING!

[Jack Straw 2954]

6 hours ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

 who are traitors on the GOP side.

every single one of them

[horncyclist 1391]

35 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

You know what's missing? A huge march on Washington. 

Seriously, a day after the inauguration there was a huge one but since then...not much. 

There needs to be a public showing of support for impeachment and removal to put some heat on these senators. 

Other countries citizens march for much less. I wish we'd get in the streets and DO SOMETHING!

When and where?

[Bookman 4639]

Going to put this here. I had a conversation with an older, successful, intelligent Trump voter and we started talking about the impeachment hearings. Long story short, he was very misinformed, and he was shocked when I told him what was actually going on. He gets all his news from Fox.

Talk to people. Tell them what's going on.

[Chad Fuck 17704]

Going to put this here. I had a conversation with an older, successful, intelligent Trump voter and we started talking about the impeachment hearings. Long story short, he was very misinformed, and he was shocked when I told him what was actually going on. He gets all his news from Fox.
Talk to people. Tell them what's going on.

This x everyone you know.

[hookem17 485]

You can lead a horse to water. 
 

I find it defeating that there are still so many unaware of the situation, whether because they’re naive or intentionally blind.

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

1 hour ago, Bookman said:

Going to put this here. I had a conversation with an older, successful, intelligent Trump voter and we started talking about the impeachment hearings. Long story short, he was very misinformed, and he was shocked when I told him what was actually going on. He gets all his news from Fox.

Talk to people. Tell them what's going on.

I imagine that many people did not watch the watergate hearings but they got their news from sources that were not willing to lie.

of course the highest rating Fox News shows are opinion shows not news.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

[cactusflinthead 27601]

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

Unfortunately Dems can’t wait for the courts to force the top people to testify. At least not now. You have several Dem senators that are running for president and they can’t wait for senate trial to start in feb or March, if not later. That’s a political reality that pelosi and Schumer will have to take into account.

i think it’s simple that evidence points to trump bribing the Ukrainians with taxpayer money, and getting caught. The WH refuses to let anyone who could, in theory, exonerate trump.  Therefore all of the evidence puts the gun in trumps hands.

move forward. Impeach and let the senate acquit him as we’ve always known they would do.

[Tuco 5077]

2 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

You know what's missing? A huge march on Washington. 

Seriously, a day after the inauguration there was a huge one but since then...not much. 

There needs to be a public showing of support for impeachment and removal to put some heat on these senators. 

Other countries citizens march for much less. I wish we'd get in the streets and DO SOMETHING!

 

2 hours ago, horncyclist said:

When and where?

At every Congressman's office the night before the impeachment vote. 

https://www.impeach.org/event/impeach-and-remove-attend/search/

Tell your friends. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Tuco

[Mo Horn 8852]

9 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

Nah, this would gain him votes.

[Chad Fuck 17704]

 

Wouldn’t move the needle.

What’s a dead Russian hooker to a bunch of mobsters? Garbage.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

Some word out there that Dems are weighing some hearings on trump’s obstruction and lies related to mueller.

[yoladu 4094]

and in a completely different alternate universe....

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3077687

 

 

You all are naive to think people dug in are going to change

Edited November 22, 2019 by yoladu

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

3 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Some word out there that Dems are weighing some hearings on trump’s obstruction and lies related to mueller.

Going after trump in one hearing after another will eventually turn against the Dems. Everyone including most Republicans  know what trump is. The gop just doesn’t care.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

6 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Some word out there that Dems are weighing some hearings on trump’s obstruction and lies related to mueller.

What are @Hugo Stiglitz’s sources saying?

[Tuco 5077]

1 hour ago, Bookman said:

Going to put this here. I had a conversation with an older, successful, intelligent Trump voter and we started talking about the impeachment hearings. Long story short, he was very misinformed, and he was shocked when I told him what was actually going on. He gets all his news from Fox.

Talk to people. Tell them what's going on.

I think misinformed is a bigger obstacle than uninformed.  You may be able to explain the details of how Trump used his position for personal gain.  They may understand that and believe it.  But when they also believe the Clinton and Obama blatantly profited from their positions, or killed people, or are lizard people, it just doesn't move the needle.  And good luck deprogramming them from 30 years of talk radio, email forwards, and flat-earth level logic on the internet. 

[triplehorn 2664]

7 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Some word out there that Dems are weighing some hearings on trump’s obstruction and lies related to mueller.

This has been fully expected and planned for a good while.

 

 

[triplehorn 2664]

 

---> Don McGahn ruling on Monday

[triplehorn 2664]

per Politico

 

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN
11/22/2019 05:13 AM EST

Right now, impeachment is all about Ukraine. But after Thanksgiving, prepare for a Robert Mueller reprise.

Now that House Democrats have wrapped up public hearings on President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign to get Ukraine to launch politically advantageous investigations, there are plans to hold at least one public impeachment hearing on Trump’s misdeeds as alleged in the special counsel’s report.

It’s a gathering that could fuel articles of impeachment beyond those tied to the Ukraine controversy. Democrats say they have new Mueller-related fodder after Roger Stone’s recent trial raised questions about whether Trump provided false statements to the special counsel’s team. And the hearing could even feature a star witness — former White House counsel Don McGahn. A judge is set to rule in the coming days on whether McGahn must comply with a House subpoena.
Story Continued Below

[...]

House leadership signaled the plans in court filings and oral arguments this week, as the Democrats’ attorneys fought to get McGahn’s testimony, as well as access to more of the evidence Mueller used to write his final report.
 

Edited November 22, 2019 by triplehorn

[DixonHur 11345]

9 hours ago, TexArcher said:

The blind Senate vote will not work.  Trump would never honor it.  And I don't trust Republicans to vote to remove anyway.  That plausible deniability thing cuts both ways.

Plus, those who do the right thing and those who don't deserve to have their names and votes recorded in history.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees.  Of course we'd all rather see an open vote to remove, but I think the chances of that happening are rather slim.

As for Trump, he has shown time and again that he won't honor anything.  Trump knows his only protection against jail is staying president, so do you really think he'd slink away quietly if the Senate voted to remove in an open vote?

Hell, do you think he would leave quietly if he lost the election?

We're way beyond the point where we need to consider Trump's reaction when making decisions.  

Mitch would have to authorize a blind vote for it to occur...that would mean the gig is up.  And with John Roberts presiding over the trial, he'd really have no legal recourse to challenge the results.

Trump's presidency will likely end with him being frog marched out of the WH.

And after overriding the military brass / justice system twice on one week, I'm sure they would all too happy to help with his removal.

 

[Biff Tannen 45696]

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

per Politico

 

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN
11/22/2019 05:13 AM EST

Right now, impeachment is all about Ukraine. But after Thanksgiving, prepare for a Robert Mueller reprise.

Now that House Democrats have wrapped up public hearings on President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign to get Ukraine to launch politically advantageous investigations, there are plans to hold at least one public impeachment hearing on Trump’s misdeeds as alleged in the special counsel’s report.

It’s a gathering that could fuel articles of impeachment beyond those tied to the Ukraine controversy. Democrats say they have new Mueller-related fodder after Roger Stone’s recent trial raised questions about whether Trump provided false statements to the special counsel’s team. And the hearing could even feature a star witness — former White House counsel Don McGahn. A judge is set to rule in the coming days on whether McGahn must comply with a House subpoena.
Story Continued Below

House leadership signaled the plans in court filings and oral arguments this week, as the Democrats’ attorneys fought to get McGahn’s testimony, as well as access to more of the evidence Mueller used to write his final report.
 

Won't they just appeal and keep it going round and round in the courts after Monday?

[TexasEd 8067]

The source of the Steele dossier was Putin and his operatives. The source of the DNC emails was Putin. 

He's playing both sides and we're too stupid to figure it out. 

[Brandywine 1316]

10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Going after trump in one hearing after another will eventually turn against the Dems. Everyone including most Republicans  know what trump is. The gop just doesn’t care.

Tax cuts and SC is all that matters to them. Plus they finally have a arrogant self-centered bully similar to them in the WH. They got everything they ever wanted and they ain’ letting it go. I’m afraid there is no turning back, this is is the GOP today and the future.

[GopherRock 1765]

Yeah, that's why those of you who have YES on impeachment by 12/31 might be out of luck. Judiciary still has to do their thing, and there are only 3 weeks left on the House calendar for 2019.

Those of you looking for fliers might do better to buy McGahn public testimony by 12/31 at 30 cents. 

[triplehorn 2664]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Won't they just appeal and keep it going round and round in the courts after Monday?

Not a lawyer, but I gather it's pretty far along.  We're at SCOTUS level for Trump's tax returns for the parallel cases involving Mazars and the Manhattan DA.

Happening today:

should know more Monday.  but keep an eye out for another caravan to Walter Reed this weekend.

[TXSG8R 3362]

11 hours ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Most depressing thing is there is no truth in today's time. 

Can just spin everything however you want.

Its more bizarre than that, two people can look at the truth and come away with polarized interpretations of it.  Its going way beyond confirmation bias.

[DixonHur 11345]

17 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

The source of the Steele dossier was Putin and his operatives. The source of the DNC emails was Putin. 

He's playing both sides and we're too stupid to figure it out. 

I think it's pretty clear he was going to put both sides against each other no matter who won. 

But I think it's equally clear that he knew that it would be better for him if Trump won.

Hillary is a Russia hawk.

[Underdog 28755]

3 hours ago, horncyclist said:

When and where?

Thursdays/Fridays work for me as I work front part of the week. 

[Horn Dog 9887]

2 hours ago, Bookman said:

Going to put this here. I had a conversation with an older, successful, intelligent Trump voter and we started talking about the impeachment hearings. Long story short, he was very misinformed, and he was shocked when I told him what was actually going on. He gets all his news from Fox.

Talk to people. Tell them what's going on.

Out of curiosity, was this person the least bit receptive to the new info that you were trying to share?  Was he willing to open his eyes a bit or did he just bring up Hillary's emails?  My experience is these people are so brainwashed that they are not even willing to consider that there is more going on then what Fox News is telling them. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

35 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

The source of the Steele dossier was Putin

Good theory but fails under scrutiny especially since the timing of the Dossier release essentially put the kibosh on Trump lifting Russia sanctions, which he tried to do immediately upon taking office.  Putin wouldn’t use the Dossier just prior to achieving a major goal. 

Lots of stuff in the Dossier ended up checking out.  The only credibly disputed fact was Cohen in Prague and even that hasn’t been 100% disproven because we only have Cohen’s word on it.  

It’s also remarkable the June 9th Trump Tower conspiracy meeting wasn’t in the Dossier but if it were it would have been explosive AF.  

Edited November 22, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[SquishMitten 10422]

12 hours ago, Ths71 said:

He should have called some of my wife’s friends. Even the camera operators would have been able to hear.

 

Seriously. I have to leave the room when my wife talks to her sister. I can hear the entire conversation from 20 feet away

[Bookman 4639]

44 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Out of curiosity, was this person the least bit receptive to the new info that you were trying to share?  Was he willing to open his eyes a bit or did he just bring up Hillary's emails?  My experience is these people are so brainwashed that they are not even willing to consider that there is more going on then what Fox News is telling them. 

Yeah he was receptive. He responded “that sounds really bad.”

[Tom 2959]

1 hour ago, yoladu said:

and in a completely different alternate universe....

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3077687

 

 

You all are naive to think people dug in are going to change

 

Sadly, Hornfans has also drank the GOP Kool Aid.  They aren't a whole lot better.

 

[SquishMitten 10422]

1 hour ago, yoladu said:

and in a completely different alternate universe....

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3077687

 

 

You all are naive to think people dug in are going to change

Holy shit. I got nauseous reading that. They're truly living in a completely different world. I know it's aggy, but damn. Just completely devoid of any rational, independent thought.

Edited November 22, 2019 by SquishMitten

[Jiggy-Z 3433]

3 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Holy shit. I got nauseous reading that. They're truly living in a completely different world. I know it's aggy, but damn. Just completely devoid of any rational, independent thought.

What a bunch of maroons.

[TwiceHorn 31515]

20 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's amazing how many of these Republicans supposedly have JD's. 

There's a reason it's called "practice of law."  Don't practice it, you tend to suck at it.

[Yuk 1552]

This is why R's have to stand completely together, because Roberts can (theoretically) compel witnesses.  No idea how that would work in Senate Trial.  Would that involve federal marshals?

[Chad Fuck 17704]

1 hour ago, yoladu said:

and in a completely different alternate universe....

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3077687

 

 

You all are naive to think people dug in are going to change

Special brand of stupid on display there.  Jeebus. 

[GRHorn 105]

WSJ editorial. 
 

The House impeachment hearings roll on, but the most important news is how little new we are learning about President Trump and Ukraine. The witnesses from the diplomatic and national-security bureaucracy are filling in some details—many of which are unflattering about how policy is made in this Administration—but none change the fundamental narrative or suggest crimes or other impeachable offenses***

That includes Wednesday’s testimony by Gordon Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union who described what he saw and heard from May through September. His account essentially confirms that Mr. Trump had a negative view of Ukraine, was reluctant to keep supplying U.S. aid, and asked Mr. Sondland and others to work with Rudy Giuliani to press Ukraine’s new President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce that he was opening an anti-corruption probe.

 

 

“The suggestion that we were engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely false,” Mr. Sondland said.

In other words, the President was directing policy, as he has the right to do, and nearly everyone in security positions seemed to know about it. As we’ve known since Mr. Trump released the transcript of his July 25 phone call with Mr. Zelensky, this may have been the least secret foreign-policy fiasco in memory. We’re almost embarrassed as journalists that we didn’t know about it.

The impeachment press is hyperventilating that Mr. Sondland finally nailed down the elusive quid pro quo with Ukraine, but that is far from clear. “Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’” Mr. Sondland said in his opening statement. “With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting [between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky], the answer is yes.”

 

But note that Mr. Sondland says nothing about aid to Ukraine being part of the quid, and under questioning later he said he merely “presumed” there were preconditions for a Trump-Zelensky meeting. He never heard that directly from Mr. Trump, and on one call with Mr. Sondland the President flatly rejected the idea. We also know that on three separate occasions, including the July 25 phone call, Mr. Trump invited Mr. Zelensky to the White House without preconditions.

Mr. Sondland also said, under questioning by Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman, that he wasn’t even sure if Mr. Giuliani cared about the result of any Ukraine investigation—only that Mr. Zelensky publicly declare that one had been opened. “I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or be completed,” Mr. Sondland said. “The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced in some form.”

This isn’t a quid pro quo that comes close to meeting the definition of bribery. It’s another case of Mr. Trump’s volatile policy-making based on personal impulse or prejudice, but it’s not an impeachable offense.

On that score, readers who have lives to lead can save time by reading Senator Ron Johnson’s account. The Wisconsin Republican has taken a personal interest in Ukraine since he joined the Senate in 2011, and in a Nov. 18 letter to House Intelligence Members he explains what he saw and heard at the White House and on visits to Ukraine.

Mr. Johnson relates how he returned from Mr. Zelensky’s inaugural to brief Mr. Trump and discovered how hostile the President was to Ukraine. Mr. Johnson supported military aid and thought Mr. Zelensky, as a newly elected President, could do much to reduce corruption. The Senator spent the next months working with others, inside and outside the Administration, to change the President’s mind.

Eventually he prevailed, and the aid was released on Sept. 11. Mr. Johnson says Mr. Trump called him on Aug. 31 and told him, “Ron, I understand your position. We’re reviewing it now, and you’ll probably like my final decision.” This matters because Democrats claim Mr. Trump released the aid only because they were on the impeachment trail.

“To my knowledge, most members of the administration and Congress dealing with the issues involving Ukraine disagreed with President Trump’s attitude and approach toward Ukraine,” Mr. Johnson writes. “Many who had the opportunity and ability to influence the president attempted to change his mind. I see nothing wrong with U.S. officials working with Ukrainian officials to demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to reform in order to change President Trump’s attitude and gain his support.”

 

But Mr. Johnson adds that officials cannot substitute their policy for the President’s and that impeachment is doing “a great deal of damage to our democracy”—not least by making presidential phone calls with foreign leaders open to public disclosure.

This is a political grownup talking. Like so many others since this idiosyncratic President was elected, Mr. Johnson has tried to steer Mr. Trump from his worst policy instincts. Thank goodness they have, and certainly this Trumpian behavior is ripe for debate and voter judgment in 2020.

Democrats might have advanced that cause with hearings and a censure resolution. Instead, they have unleashed the dogs of impeachment without impeachable offenses.

 

[bad_teammate 13221]

Put Roberts in the spotlight to justify changes to the SC when the time comes.

[triplehorn 2664]

12 minutes ago, Yuk said:

This is why R's have to stand completely together, because Roberts can (theoretically) compel witnesses.  No idea how that would work in Senate Trial.  Would that involve federal marshals?

Good stuff.  And smart.  It’s all about access to evidence/testimony while staying focused on the clock.  

[Tuco 5077]

That WSJ article is a clear demonstration of how far a fine newspaper has fallen under Murdoch.  What complete horseshit.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

The WSJ opinion article seems to define the impeachment being over whether the president has the right to incompetently shape foreign policy or not. That is exactly what isn't being argued by the Dems.  Trump has a right to shape foreign policy whether he's right, wrong, competent, incompetent, whatever. There are political consequences for his policy but not impeachment itself.

But somehow, his administration got into their head that if the Ukrainians wanted that aid AND an Oval Office photoshoot, then they had to specifically investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma.  We don't know if Trump personally demanded this.  It's also possible that someone else on his staff/team made this decision based on what they assumed Trump wanted. 

We just don't know because the people that do, won't talk. 

A personal, political favor/demand isn't a foreign policy decision. It's abuse of power which is open to impeachment.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31515]

15 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

And calling Republicanism a “religion” is insightful, in the sense that the label itself defines a central part of many people’s’ identities and is thus very difficult to abandon even after any substantive agreement has waned.  Those of you who have found the intellectual courage to abandon that identity on principle, and to recognize your loyalty to a higher identity (American, human being, non-criminal, non-hypocrite, or whatever the case may be) should be proud of yourselves.  It ain’t easy to give up part of your identity, even when it’s clearly for the best.

It's a very disassociated feeling.  A "stateless person."

[SquishMitten 10422]

8 minutes ago, Tuco said:

That WSJ article is a clear demonstration of how far a fine newspaper has fallen under Murdoch.  What complete horseshit.  

Yeesh. Should've stopped reading at this point: "this may have been the least secret foreign-policy fiasco in memory. We’re almost embarrassed as journalists that we didn’t know about it."   

This is in the same vein as all the "I'm an independent voter, and I disagree with Trump on everything, but there's been nothing revealed that comes anywhere near being impeachable" idiots around the internet. They don't even have to bother putting the slightest effort into sounding credible because our populous is incapable or unwilling to analyze anything beyond "well, it's in writing so it must be completely accurate."

Really? It's so obvious that you're embarrassed as a journalist to have not known about back-channel "diplomacy," some of which was memorialized in a secret server? Where many of the parties involved have spent their lives working under the table and in the shadows? And where you, as a journalist, have abdicated your responsibility as a member of the press to monitor our government for these exact types of things? Well, now that I write it out, of course you didn't know about it. Hard to uncover anything if you're intentionally looking the other way.

[SquishMitten 10422]

40 minutes ago, Yuk said:

This is why R's have to stand completely together, because Roberts can (theoretically) compel witnesses.  No idea how that would work in Senate Trial.  Would that involve federal marshals?

That's interesting. Throughout this process, I've wondered why there hasn't been much talk about the secret server. This could explain it. There's no way Dems would've gotten access to the server without it going all the way up to the SC where Roberts would presumably be the swing vote anyway. But if they wait until trial in the Senate, they can request it and get a ruling almost immediately (again, presumably the same ruling they would've gotten by waiting for the SC to decide). 

Not that it should be necessary since there's already ample evidence of a crime worthy of impeachment, but a big part of me thinks that server is like the Nixon tapes. If they can get into it, assuming somebody hasn't accidentally destroyed everything it contains, I'd bet good money there's a whole lot of other grounds for impeachment.