Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

[RationalityIsLost101]

Anyway, back to your expert witnesses. The three hand picked Constitutional Experts were the Democrats witnesses. I'm not saying they don't know about the Constitution, but the clear fact most of them have documented past histories of slandering the President they're helping impeach and the fact that they are in fact only the Democrats witnesses and most likely were educated in Liberal colleges make them by far not credible witnesses )as they are clearly bias). Now maybe if the Republicans could have called 3 of their own Constitutional Experts that would have been fair. Seeings as the Democrats are controlling the entire circus I've already accepted the fact it's going to be unfair to Trump and he's not going to get any sort of actual justice from these people.

So, one of the three democrat expert witnesses was the sole bipart expert witness of the last impeachment. Majority and minority have representation, last impeachment didn't have equal representation either when the party representation was flipped.

 

[Xzi]

I stopped wasting my time with you because it's the Liberals end game. Just ask one. There's nothing to debate. It's like saying that fire isn't hot.

Socialist ideals run contrary to what neoliberals and neoconservatives both want to achieve. That's why both Biden and Trump, CNN and Fox are all united in their disdain for Bernie Sanders. They can't very well have the balance of power shifting back toward the workers in any small measure, otherwise billionaires might have to make due with four yachts each instead of five.

So, one of the three democrat expert witnesses was the sole bipart expert witness of the last impeachment. Majority and minority have representation, last impeachment didn't have equal representation either when the party representation was flipped.

Not to mention the one witness the Republicans called had previously defended a judge against impeachment who was clearly guilty of what he was being accused of. The judge was then overwhelmingly convicted in a bipartisan vote.

 

[notimp]

That's only the Democrats and Liberals side of the story (that Biden was the target), in which since that's what they're claiming happened, there's no concrete evidence that Trump was solely going after Biden for political dirt - not to mention Biden hasn't even won the Democratic 2020 primaries so he's not even Trump's direct political opponent.

What I said. Thats the spin trying to be applied. But then we all kind of can imagine, that Trump would be irratic and idiotic enough to make this a priority regardless, and risk the entire hey, you trying to win the next presidency by extortion? question Regardless.

We have even more circumstantial evidence, since apparently the institutional representatives (swamp in your parlance), have adviced against it, were shocked, that that incidence happened, and immediately filed a motion to hide the protocol of the conversation away on a classified server as to not damage the reputation of the office in public. That was before the whistleblower spoke out.

So all of this seems perfectly in line with Trumps a moron, that people let play president within limited risk profile activities, just so that he can stroke his ego, while still acting as a draw for really dumb people, that vote based on the funcies of acting like a schoolyard bully - because its so 'like the people', while conveniently attributing all bullying parts to 'thats what a good dictator has to do'. Hey, if he keeps away from more important stuff and keeps playing sockpuppet, on more important issues hes advised on, who cares.

Then you spread a little uncertainty and doubt (which version of transcript?! But was he really that dumb, that he done did this based on 'possibility space' (and yes, I think I know the answer)), confuse people in regards to what happened here - and get away with republicans not moving on this being an impeachment class issue (which it likely is), which is all that is needed.

Lets not be naive here. There is no other case to be made, why that investigation would have been of national, even on the ukraine side, importance. The freaking looser son of an acting societal figure does not interest anyone - unless when you need to broker access. And access isnt the same as corruption per se.

Also, this isnt a dig on Biden necessarily, because people will hire his idiot son based on name alone - without him brokering or promising anything. Thats stuff that then gets layerd in afterwards (hey, you wont refuse important meeting to your son, right?). And you cant really say - hey - no good son, dont take the opportunity I imagine you have not realized on your own, because it might cause me reputation damage in the future. You dont expect that from Trump either btw.

 

[cots]

Socialist ideals run contrary to what neoliberals and neoconservatives both want to achieve. That's why both Biden and Trump, CNN and Fox are all united in their disdain for Bernie Sanders. They can't very well have the balance of power shifting back toward the workers in any small measure, otherwise billionaires might have to make due with four yachts each instead of five.


Not to mention the one witness the Republicans called had previously defended a judge against impeachment who was clearly guilty of what he was being accused of. The judge was then overwhelmingly convicted in a bipartisan vote.

Bernie simply repackaged and is reselling socialism under his own brand name - what is is this year? Identifying as a socialist Democrat? At least he's been consistent with his efforts and platforms and is simply using his ticket as a Democratic nominee to his advantage. Running without a party would have been a bad idea. I'm impressed with his consistency as the other socialist sellouts simply run with whatever is popular among their Liberal voters this year. "Who here supports open borders"? That sellout stance wouldn't have worked in 2008 or 2016. Plus the rest of the candidates are simply running on what they're going to do with the money they'll steal from the middle class and rich people. Either way you try to rebrand socialism it's all the same, just like shades of the color blue.

The constitutional witnesses were more credible than the others, but they're basing the validity of the impeachment based on what those others had testified and the others testimony was far from damming. So in the end they are trying to justify preplanned impeachment on a foundation built out of sand.

Another problem with the Liberals is that they have already made up their mind that Trump is guilty before the verdict has been reached. Just like the reaction from CNN reporters who freaked out when Mueller found no collusion or how the Republicans thought that the FBI corruption would implicate high up officials. The takeaway is don't count your chickens before they hatch. Trump should be given the presumption of innocence before the verdict, but seeings as the Liberals have been brainwashed to attack everything he does their failings are understandable.

 

[notimp]

socialist sellouts

Who is paying a socialist? If he wants to sell out?

We've learned that it certainly isnt billionair doners, the likes of which cots could be payed by - if he just tried.

We know that its certainly not big companies.

Wait socialists are selling out to the notion, that they actually want to matter more politically themselves - you know, take responsibility, be judged by people rather than elites, become an elite the old fashioned way basically.

I'm not getting the sellout angle here.

Cots randomly putting together emotionally activating words to put people in the 'thats not what you want to vote for camp' - this is how idiots work by the way, always trying to find the shortcut ("Whats best?") so they dont have to actually learn up on the issue. So you manipulate them by giving them emotions instead of facts, and ensuring them over and over again, that this is how the majority thinks.

Thats what certain billionairs and media channels (establishment) already did in this (Bernie) case. Multiple times. Republicans and democrats alike.
-

The invented sellout angle comes from scottish actor films of the era when Hollywood still produced better movies. Of "we against the commies" - which is idiotic, because what Bernie wants, people in canada already have. Damn commies.

Cots often shows you a masterclass in popular manipulation. Hes interesting like that.

Also democratic socialism kind of isnt a word the Bernie campaign invented, its the political system 80% of the west is run on. Anywhere other than the US and GB basically (which are more free market capitalist in orientation) (F*ck the poor, dont pay for the ill, ...). Gives you more of an economic edge.

Because people are more 'forced' to take any job opportunities that are out there, so its easier to start and maintain businesses.

 

[cots]

What I said. Thats the spin trying to be applied. But then we all kind of can imagine, that Trump would be irratic and idiotic enough to make this a priority regardless, and risk the entire hey, you trying to win the next presidency by extortion? question Regardless.

We have even more circumstantial evidence, since apparently the institutional representatives (swamp in your parlance), have adviced against it, were shocked, that that incidence happened, and immediately filed a motion to hide the protocol of the conversation away on a classified server as to not damage the reputation of the office in public. That was before the whistleblower spoke out.

So all of this seems perfectly in line with Trumps a moron, that people let play president within limited risk profile activities, just so that he can stroke his ego, while still acting as a draw for really dumb people, that vote based on the funcies of acting like a schoolyard bully - because its so 'like the people', while conveniently attributing all bullying parts to 'thats what a good dictator has to do'. Hey, if he keeps away from more important stuff and keeps playing sockpuppet, on more important issues hes advised on, who cares.

Then you spread a little uncertainty and doubt (which version of transcript?! But was he really that dumb, that he done did this based on 'possibility space' (and yes, I think I know the answer)), confuse people in regards to what happened here - and get away with republicans not moving on this being an impeachment class issue (which it likely is), which is all that is needed.

Lets not be naive here. There is no other case to be made, why that investigation would have been of national, even on the ukraine side, importance. The freaking looser son of an acting societal figure does not interest anyone - unless when you need to broker access. And access isnt the same as corruption per se.

Also, this isnt a dig on Biden necessarily, because people will hire his idiot son based on name alone - without him brokering or promising anything. Thats stuff that then gets layerd in afterwards (hey, you wont refuse important meeting to your son, right?). And you cant really say - hey - no good son, dont take the opportunity I imagine you have not realized on your own, because it might cause me reputation damage in the future. You dont expect that from Trump either btw.

I agree that Trump has an inflated ego as about as much as Obama had, but the entire world view that Trump is a blabbering moron is very inaccurate. He purposely uses Twitter to fuck with his opponents and the dumb people are the one's that constantly fall for it (not to mention anyone using modern social media are suffering from mental health issues). He's an overall successful business owner and won the freaking Presidential election by overcoming all sorts of odds. He's by far dumb. He's also got the support from honest hard working citizens who the Liberals plan to plunder to support the real dumb and useless people in the USA.

You also just touched on the fact that what Biden did - his admitted quid pro quo is not worth all the fuss and neither is what Trump is accused of. While Biden is on record bragging about it there's still no credible evidence proving Trump was after Biden. While it's more believable than being a Russian agent it's still coming from the same morons who came up with that BS to begin with.

 

[notimp]

I agree that Trump has an inflated ego as about as much as Obama had,

Oh f*ck off, this isnt a cattle show, where you compare price bulls all the time.

The notion behind this argument alsways has been. Obama is a black. Liberal dems sold us out by making possible the first black president of the US, never forget that - we will shove that image in your face to trigger your subconscious fears at any point we deem beneficial.

That comparison in this case is nonsense.

We are not comparing character flaws here, but likelyhoods, of an idiot doing stuff he actually can be impeached for - on terms of 'abusing the office for personal gains'. Obama was so straight laced, ... As a character study he is the antithesis of what Trump likely did in this case. But both showed ambition? Well string them up...

The 'but Obama' defense is basically racism as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Xzi]

Bernie simply repackaged and is reselling socialism under his own brand name - what is is this year? Identifying as a socialist Democrat? At least he's been consistent with his efforts and platforms and is simply using his ticket as a Democratic nominee to his advantage. Running without a party would have been a bad idea. I'm impressed with his consistency as the other socialist sellouts simply run with whatever is popular among their Liberal voters this year.

Bernie is the only candidate in the race with any sort of socialist inclinations, even Warren self-identifies as 100% capitalist. The only reason the rest of the candidates have adopted any semblance of his policies is because they're undeniably popular, but most of them can't be trusted to not pivot away from those policies once they've secured the nomination.

Plus the rest of the candidates are simply running on what they're going to do with the money they'll steal from the middle class and rich people.

As opposed to stealing tax money from the lower classes to pay for golf carts for Trump's fat ass? I'd take it. The middle class is basically non-existent in this country at this point, and what little of it is left would benefit greatly from medicare for all, tuition-free college, etc.

 

[Hanafuda]

Not to mention the one witness the Republicans called had previously defended a judge against impeachment who was clearly guilty of what he was being accused of. The judge was then overwhelmingly convicted in a bipartisan vote.

I've been staying out of this recently and intend to keep on doing so ... but you're talking about a lawyer representing a client. That's what lawyers do. It's not a basis for criticism.

That witness btw, Jonathan Turley, may have been called by the Republicans, but he is liberal/progressive. He just doesn't slant politically when it comes to reading the Constitution. He was in favor of Clinton's impeachment because Clinton did commit perjury. He advocated for criminal prosecutions for GWBush admin officials for war crimes and torture. I'd love to see him on the Supreme Court someday, because he actually expresses his opinion of what the law is, not just his opinion.

 

[Xzi]

I've been staying out of this recently and intend to keep on doing so ... but you're talking about a lawyer representing a client. That's what lawyers do. It's not a basis for criticism.

Correction: he's a law professor, not a lawyer. He picks and chooses which cases he takes on out of personal interest.

He was in favor of Clinton's impeachment because Clinton did commit perjury.

And here I was gonna say at least I can respect his consistency in his stance against impeachment in general, but clearly he hasn't been consistent about it. Perjury isn't even the tip of the iceberg where Trump is concerned, remember that he perjured himself (likely multiple times) in his written answers to Mueller's questions.

 

[cots]

Bernie is the only candidate in the race with any sort of socialist inclinations, even Warren self-identifies as 100% capitalist. The only reason the rest of the candidates have adopted any semblance of his policies is because they're undeniably popular, but most of them can't be trusted to not pivot away from those policies once they've secured the nomination.


As opposed to stealing tax money from the lower classes to pay for golf carts for Trump's fat ass? I'd take it. The middle class is basically non-existent in this country at this point, and what little of it is left would benefit greatly from medicare for all, tuition-free college, etc.

The people who would benefit most are the one's that don't work to begin with. Sure they pay taxes with the handouts they're already getting. Just like you claimed every Trump voter is racist. There's still a middle class. Have you not been in the suburbs lately? Although the middle class is under attack by the Liberals who think everyone should be on the same pay level regardless of their contributions. Well everyone except the people in power. They get to be rich while after the rest of us run out of the rich people's money we don't deserve will be left fighting over scraps.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh f*ck off, this isnt a cattle show, where you compare price bulls all the time.

The notion behind this argument alsways has been. Obama is a black. Liberal dems sold us out by making possible the first black president of the US, never forget that - we will shove that image in your face to trigger your subconscious fears at any point we deem beneficial.

That comparison in this case is nonsense.

We are not comparing character flaws here, but likelyhoods, of an idiot doing stuff he actually can be impeached for - on terms of 'abusing the office for personal gains'. Obama was so straight laced, ... As a character study he is the antithesis of what Trump likely did in this case. But both showed ambition? Well string them up...

The 'but Obama' defense is basically racism as far as I'm concerned.

My point was that most Presidents by nature have inflated egos and are control freaks. It's part of the job. Obama was passive aggressive, but he was just as much power hungry as Trump. His snarky "I know best" and "trust me" were just as dishonest as the next politician. Seems I hit a nerve. Good. Now you know how I feel when people constantly complain about the President of the USA regardless of who they may be. Show some respect.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Correction: he's a law professor, not a lawyer. He picks and chooses which cases he takes on out of personal interest.


And here I was gonna say at least I can respect his consistency in his stance against impeachment in general, but clearly he hasn't been consistent about it. Perjury isn't even the tip of the iceberg where Trump is concerned, remember that he perjured himself (likely multiple times) in his written answers to Mueller's questions.

When he takes a case as a lawyer on the team he becomes a lawyer that happens to also have other credentials. Sort of like how a baseball player might moonlight as a prison guard. I'd say you were simply not thinking when you wrote that, but then again you're dishonest and cannot admit you are ever wrong. Common Liberal traits.

 

[Hanafuda]

And here I was gonna say at least I can respect his consistency in his stance against impeachment in general, but clearly he hasn't been consistent about it. Perjury isn't even the tip of the iceberg where Trump is concerned, remember that he perjured himself (likely multiple times) in his written answers to Mueller's questions.

Even if that were true, is it one of the articles the Democrats prepared? no. Is it something they attempted to prove in their investigation? no. Maybe that's what Turley meant when he said they fucked it all up and haven't proven any impeachable offenses because they rushed the job.

 

[ut2k4master]

Show some respect.

respect is earned, not given

 

[notimp]

My point was that most Presidents by nature have inflated egos and are control freaks. It's part of the job. Obama was passive aggressive, but he was just as much power hungry as Trump. His snarky "I know best" and "trust me" were just as dishonest as the next politician. Seems I hit a nerve. Good. Now you know how I feel when people constantly complain about the President of the USA regardless of who they may be. Show some respect.

I'm fine with the characterization, as I dont have a thing against ambitioned (power hungry) people, and dont know them personally.

There is a thing with risk taking though, that if you are in that high of a 'managerial' position, you can rely on people giving you risk profiles (not always accurate, not always available); that allow you to not take stupid risk. Obama was very prone to doing that.

Talking about stupid risk - trying to lowball blackmail a leader of a foreign nation thats on your allies list, for that small (?) of (ultimately pretty personal) benefit spells stupid risk to me. (Nevermind damagin americas reputation in country, what about the reputation to your status around the world...) If it was necessary I cant say - because in the end, anything (within legal parameters) that gets you elected again goes, right? Those are the rules.

(Although normally - acting like a 'statesmen' gives you more accolades, if you've already been president once - because people are suckers for candidate perceived as 'pragmatic power figures'. So any move that paints you as a hail marry risk taker, normally is not the way to go.. (so you would have had to keep it on a down low))

 

[Xzi]

Even if that were true, is it one of the articles the Democrats prepared? no. Is it something they attempted to prove in their investigation? no. Maybe that's what Turley meant when he said they fucked it all up and haven't proven any impeachable offenses because they rushed the job.

And there's a reason the other three law experts disagreed with him on that. This case couldn't possibly be any more straightforward, unlike the Mueller report which was too much for the general public to digest. There's also a big difference between "rushing" it and not allowing Republicans to stonewall the process well past November 2020, especially considering that the fairness and trustworthiness of all our future elections is what's at stake here.

The people who would benefit most are the one's that don't work to begin with.

Think again. There are a ton of people who work and still can't afford college tuition or decent healthcare insurance.

There's still a middle class. Have you not been in the suburbs lately?

Most of suburbia is working class and drowning in debt. I think you're lowering the bar for what's truly considered middle class.

 

[cots]

respect is earned, not given

The respect for our country has been earned by the people who fought and died for it. You should respect the flag, our history, our great leaders, the fact our country was built around faith in God, the laws and the three branches of Government. Only little entitled Liberal brats who are allowed to say and act like they do because of the people who shed blood for them would turn around and disrespect them and our great nation. The respect has been earned - so show it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

IMPEACHMENT UPDATE 12/09/2019

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-unveil-articles-impeachment-president-trump-tuesday-sources/story?id=67614092

Seems the Democrats are finalizing their charges.

"The charges are expected to focus on obstruction and abuse of power."

If unless they can get "abuse of power" to stick then there's no reason why the "obstruction" charge would be valid. Good luck trying to convince the Senate that not caving into the Democrats demands was obstruction (considering the entire fact the impeachment was pre-planned to happen regardless of any wrong doing and this isn't their first attempt). I see no reason why "abuse of power" would stick anyway as the entire situation surrounding Ukraine was business as usual. If you understand why this latest impeachment attempt is happening, how it's been handled so far and the actual evidence the Democrats have you can see how this is probably going to fall flat on its face. I hope the Chinese food the Judiciary Committee staff consumed tonight contained 90% rat meat and 10% human waste.

 

[Xzi]

Good luck trying to convince the Senate

Of anything based in reality. Everybody is already perfectly aware that the Senate cannot be expected to hold an objective, fact-based trial. I'd honestly be surprised if McConnell lets it go on even two days before holding a vote, he's never been concerned about the appearance of impropriety before.

That said, whether the charges "stick" with Trump is an issue entirely separate from Senate Republicans wiping their asses with the constitution and the rule of law. The Mueller report certainly stuck with voters long enough to hand Democrats a sweeping victory in the 2018 mid-term elections, and the impeachment inquiry also seemed to move the needle in their favor for 2019 state-level elections.

 

[Deleted User]

The respect for our country has been earned by the people who fought and died for it. You should respect the flag, our history, our great leaders, the fact our country was built around faith in God, the laws and the three branches of Government. Only little entitled Liberal brats who are allowed to say and act like they do because of the people who shed blood for them would turn around and disrespect them and our great nation. The respect has been earned - so show it.

No. People do not have to respect all of those things. People should respect the flag, what our democracy means, and the constitution. History is not to be respected. it is to be learned from, if you fail to learn the mistakes of the past they are doomed to repeat. There is no need to respect leaders as the states is supposed to be a democratic republic the people we choose is meant to represent us (therefore, that respect is earned through trust). Not the other way around. We aren't meant to pick people for us to represent them. It is meant for them to represent us. Something I take great issue with is a lot of people think you have to conform to what party you consider yourself in says. To agree with their ideals, when really it should be the people, the majority. Most of the time, it doesn't. And worst of all. Partisanship.
You've demonstrated your lines clearly. I must ask, do you think attacking a group of people are going to make them less secure with their position and to some, a identification marker as a liberal?
By personally attacking them, you are damning your own chances to convince them.
People latch onto their beliefs harder when you come out throwing a fist.
"Only little entitled Liberal brats"
This line alone, makes everyone discredit you. It could be anything replacing liberals, and you will still be discredited. Insert any noun into that subject, and you will most likely guarantees to get a negative response to it forcing everyone to move closer into their corners. You lack professionalism in your statements above. Now let me make clear. What I've said applies to what you said. Not who you are.

 

[cots]

Of anything based in reality. Everybody is already perfectly aware that the Senate cannot be expected to hold an objective, fact-based trial. I'd honestly be surprised if McConnell lets it go on even two days before holding a vote, he's never been concerned about the appearance of impropriety before.

That said, whether the charges "stick" with Trump is an issue entirely separate from Senate Republicans wiping their asses with the constitution and the rule of law. The Mueller report certainly stuck with voters long enough to hand Democrats a sweeping victory in the 2018 mid-term elections, and the impeachment inquiry also seemed to move the needle in their favor for 2019 state-level elections.

Even the limited wins at the polls in 2018 don't indicate what the voters will do in 2020 and there was no "sweeping victory". If anything there's going to be some backlash over the premeditated impeachment and you do realize that the Independents don't support it. Trump also has a majority of Latino and Blacks on his side. Though, I understand that the impeachment process is not only being abused by the Democrats as it premeditated, but by your own admission (which most Conservatives see right through regardless of expressed guilt) it's also being abused to try to influence an election. I guess hiring foreign government spies to slander your opponent didn't work out for you in 2016 so you've stepped up your game. What'll be funny is if Trump wins again even though your side is already trying to stack the deck. Regardless, if he's cleared in the Senate (which, you don't know that will happen or not) then he'll be cleared of any wrong doing, thus your latest impeachment attempt would be a failed and you would have lost again. Hopefully that happens because not only would that be fair, just and right for the country, but it would cause the TDS morons to go even further into denial, as "we accept the loss" and "we'll move on for the betterment of society" seems to have been removed from their vocabulary.

 

[Xzi]

Even the limited wins at the polls in 2018 don't indicate what the voters will do in 2020 and there was no "sweeping victory". If anything there's going to be some backlash over the premeditated impeachment and you do realize that the Independents don't support it.

Support for impeachment and removal hit as high as 55%, which is well above its highest point during the process for either the Nixon or Clinton. Any notable "backlash" certainly would've affected the state-level elections in Kentucky, Louisiana, and elsewhere, but Dems won those races while the impeachment inquiry was ongoing. So at best you're speculating wildly here, there's no evidence to back what you're saying. 2018's House Democrats were elected because people wanted oversight and accountability for the executive branch, and that's exactly what they've delivered.

by your own admission (which most Conservatives see right through regardless of expressed guilt) it's also being abused to try to influence an election

Trump abused his power out of fear for one of the weakest Democratic candidates, so yes, in a way this has always been about the election, and Trump is the one that made it so. When the Senate acquits him, they'll be signaling that foreign influence in US elections is welcome, and it'll be sure to turn the 2020 cycle into even more of a shitshow than it would've been anyway.