-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun
- Thread starter IncredulousP
- Start date
- Views 42,405
- Replies 628
- Likes 4
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,004
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- Site 19
- Website
- catgirlsin.space
- XP
- 3,441
- Country
Should probably point out that American Oversight is mainly considered biased left wing due to their story selection and choices in headlines. They don't report inaccurate facts according to mediabiasfactcheck but aren't open about how they're funded.
Basically, yes they're biased but it probably doesn't impact the report in question.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
According to it's about page, the site is made by a guy called Dave van Zandt who studied Communications and has done extensive research on media biases and the role of media in politics. If you want to know where he leans politically, the about page says he's registered as non-affiliated.
I apologize I wasn't familiar with that outlet and apparently their about page is what I cited.
While I updated and edited my posts pertaining the linked website's as a left leaning source in their presentation of news articles, the big takeaway is still documents that were produced from the FOIA. These documents are now available to the general public and this shows Trump is currently obstructing congress as they are refusing to provide to congress documents and records that can be obtained by the general public through FOIA. These documents can be viewed independent of their leaning analysis for those who enjoy reading that sort of material.
Last edited by RationalityIsLost101,
Not even gonna dispute that's going on, because it's standard fucking practice for the executive branch and has always been. Do you not remember Obama's administration blocking witnesses from testifying, ignoring subpoenas, refusing to provide records/documents?????? There's nothing specifically "Trump" about this ... it's just how they handle their shit. When someone says your ass is probably dirty, you either deny it, admit it, or try not to respond at all. You don't bend over and spread your cheeks for inspection.
Yet you presume that I don't also take issue with it when it was in the Obama Administration? I want more government transparency. Although, there is that other qualifier that Obama wasn't facing an impeachment inquiry. Which makes it all the more dire to take such a policy when dealing w/ congressional oversight.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Perhaps ill-advised is a more appropriate word rather than dire.
Were you posting here back then to criticize the Obama administration for it?
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,004
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- Site 19
- Website
- catgirlsin.space
- XP
- 3,441
- Country
Heh... I predicted earlier that Trump would distantiate himself from Giuliani. Trump now claimed that the guy was in Ukraine doing his own thing rather than doing the president's bidding.
Stay tuned for irrefutable evidence from Giuliani...
(what? It's not like Trump is doing loyalty. You didn't think Giuliani hasn't learned anything from the Cohen affaire?)
Stay tuned for irrefutable evidence from Giuliani...
(what? It's not like Trump is doing loyalty. You didn't think Giuliani hasn't learned anything from the Cohen affaire?)
Yes this is what Trump is claiming and Giuliani isn't disagreeing. Seeings as they're the only two people involved in that decision or could state for a fact it's either one way or another why would I trust some random reporter with an axe to grind? Because "Sonland assumed"? Give me a break. It's like taking the word of someone who overheard two people talking about something and not believing the two people who were actually talking about the subject. The Liberal Democrats are really desperate and think the general public is really stupid. That'll be their downfall come 2020.
Last edited by cots,
That seems to be a pretty convenient party registration for someone running a political bias fact checking page. Not that doesn't mean he's lying. I read some of the bias checks and they seem pretty accurate. Although, they're just pretty much generic overviews. It doesn't seem like much time was put into some of the entries, especially CNN.com. I have some basic understanding of proper journalism and CNN has a pretty bad past at following it. If you're interested in what CNN is constantly doing wrong just look at this site https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines and also recall your basic grade school lessons of "you need to include who, what, when, where and why" in your reports and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe this guy who runs the site should spend more time investigating the bias of each site? Because the CNN overview is only semi-accurate.
Edit: You might want to search this site https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-20/exposing-9-fakest-fake-news-checkers for his name. Who do you trust? WHO DO YOU TRUST?
Last edited by cots,
https://www.justsecurity.org/67536/heres-the-proof-that-trumps-no-quid-pro-quo-call-never-happened/
This was an interesting read into the analysis of Sondland's testimony, specifically his call with the President. This is the most intriguing thing I've read since the public hearings and think it deserves to be highlighted.
The major issue most people have had so far, in my opinion, is they are looking at these testimonies/hearings as separate entities rather than coalescing the information together to reproduce an accurate timeline of events.
The TLDR is that Sondland has a range of dates for his infamous call with the president. The timing of the call is significant to context regarding Tim Morrison's testimony and paints a different picture than the President presented with his sharpie notes in front of the press.
"Ambassador Sondland, did not testify accurately when he said that President Trump had never asked him for a quid pro quo from Ukraine. In fact, President Trump had personally informed Sondland of his specific demands for a quid pro quo from Ukraine – and the White House National Security Council is sitting on documents that confirm it."
I had initial reservations whether or not enough information is available to corroborate the assertion presented in this analysis but I was able to follow along with this line of thought and it could be easily verified with phone records as well as the complaint lodged by Mr. Morrison to the NSC lawyers. I imagine as more documents come forward due to FOIA suits that are barraging the Trump Administration we would be able to pinpoint the date of the call thus allowing the proper context to be applied.
---
"By erroneously placing the call on September 9th, Sondland helped obscure these omissions from his testimony, by divorcing the call from its actual context in the ongoing negotiations with Ukraine over what form of quid pro quo would be acceptable. More importantly, it also gave the appearance that the call Sondland was describing was somehow different from the call that was described by two other witnesses – both of whom testified that the call included an explicit demand by Trump for a quid pro quo."
---
---
"In fact, there does exist a detailed, contemporaneous record of what exactly Sondland said on that call with Trump. Because on September 7th, after his call with Sondland, Morrison immediately went to the NSC lawyers to report what had happened, because “[he] was concerned about what Ambassador Sondland was saying were requirements” for the release of the security assistance. (Morrison Depo. at 145) That is, Morrison went to the NSC lawyers to report Sondland’s claim that President Trump was involved in making an explicit quid pro quo demand to Ukraine."
---
There were main five bolded points raised in this article, I'll past them below but encourage people to read this analysis because I missed this conflict in testimony entirely during my read of the depositions.
I. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call (Background of the call and its contents that is being referenced in this article)
II. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Took Place on Sept. 7, Not on Sept. 9
III. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Was in Response to Negotiations That Occurred in Warsaw, Not Bill Taylor’s Text
IV. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Was In Fact a Demand for Quid Pro Quo
V. The White House Has Contemporaneous Written Records of the “No Quid Pro Quo” Call
---
At this point if these things can be confirmed as this article suggests, if the american public doesn't think that Trump is guilty of Quid Pro Quo (Attempted Bribery) by with holding security assistance, then it is the fault of the democrats for not making use of the public hearings to appropriately present the facts before the public just as much as it would be for the republicans for attempting to obfuscate the facts.
This was an interesting read into the analysis of Sondland's testimony, specifically his call with the President. This is the most intriguing thing I've read since the public hearings and think it deserves to be highlighted.
The major issue most people have had so far, in my opinion, is they are looking at these testimonies/hearings as separate entities rather than coalescing the information together to reproduce an accurate timeline of events.
The TLDR is that Sondland has a range of dates for his infamous call with the president. The timing of the call is significant to context regarding Tim Morrison's testimony and paints a different picture than the President presented with his sharpie notes in front of the press.
"Ambassador Sondland, did not testify accurately when he said that President Trump had never asked him for a quid pro quo from Ukraine. In fact, President Trump had personally informed Sondland of his specific demands for a quid pro quo from Ukraine – and the White House National Security Council is sitting on documents that confirm it."
I had initial reservations whether or not enough information is available to corroborate the assertion presented in this analysis but I was able to follow along with this line of thought and it could be easily verified with phone records as well as the complaint lodged by Mr. Morrison to the NSC lawyers. I imagine as more documents come forward due to FOIA suits that are barraging the Trump Administration we would be able to pinpoint the date of the call thus allowing the proper context to be applied.
---
"By erroneously placing the call on September 9th, Sondland helped obscure these omissions from his testimony, by divorcing the call from its actual context in the ongoing negotiations with Ukraine over what form of quid pro quo would be acceptable. More importantly, it also gave the appearance that the call Sondland was describing was somehow different from the call that was described by two other witnesses – both of whom testified that the call included an explicit demand by Trump for a quid pro quo."
---
---
"In fact, there does exist a detailed, contemporaneous record of what exactly Sondland said on that call with Trump. Because on September 7th, after his call with Sondland, Morrison immediately went to the NSC lawyers to report what had happened, because “[he] was concerned about what Ambassador Sondland was saying were requirements” for the release of the security assistance. (Morrison Depo. at 145) That is, Morrison went to the NSC lawyers to report Sondland’s claim that President Trump was involved in making an explicit quid pro quo demand to Ukraine."
---
There were main five bolded points raised in this article, I'll past them below but encourage people to read this analysis because I missed this conflict in testimony entirely during my read of the depositions.
I. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call (Background of the call and its contents that is being referenced in this article)
II. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Took Place on Sept. 7, Not on Sept. 9
III. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Was in Response to Negotiations That Occurred in Warsaw, Not Bill Taylor’s Text
IV. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Was In Fact a Demand for Quid Pro Quo
V. The White House Has Contemporaneous Written Records of the “No Quid Pro Quo” Call
---
At this point if these things can be confirmed as this article suggests, if the american public doesn't think that Trump is guilty of Quid Pro Quo (Attempted Bribery) by with holding security assistance, then it is the fault of the democrats for not making use of the public hearings to appropriately present the facts before the public just as much as it would be for the republicans for attempting to obfuscate the facts.
Last edited by RationalityIsLost101,
, Reason: Text was incorrectly bolded.
He is only guilty of doing his job. Holding up foreign aid is not a crime. What's he's accused of his holding up foreign aid for dirt on Biden. The Liberals can't prove this so now; are they changing their basis for impeachment again? By the way, foreign aid is held up all of the time for various reasons and it always comes with conditions. We just don't hand out money to anyone who asks and then allow them to spend it any way they like. Of course, all of this is being somehow confirmed by assumption. Bleh, more mindless Liberal dribble. Nothing new, nothing damning. Move along.
It is apparent you didn't read the article so there isn't much point conversing with you, but for others who have some appetite to actually READ and DISCUSS on this thread, well those are the ones this is targeted towards. You have proven time and time again to assert into a discussion with nothing substantive. If you quote something from the article you don't agree with then that would be appropriate. At this point, all you have provided is equivalent to a shit post.
It is apparent in multiple witness testimonies, even quoted within the article provided, that was linked that the aid was conditioned on investigations into a political opponent. Your refusal to address substance says everything anyone needs to hear.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
@cots You also never addressed my question on this thread in post #238.
I... Honestly don't see much relevance in a mix up dates (all me whom I called 2 months ago and I could easily be wrong two days as well).
It would have been an important point for Republicans because it could show that Trump didn't make that call in response to democrats starting an investigation... But it has since been revealed that he knew about the whistle blower rapport 'earlier'.
I was also familiar with the context. Trump didn't so much say "I want no qui pro quo" but "I don't want a quid pro quo... I just want to do the ukranians to do the right thing".
Which is like saying "I don't want to commit a crime... I just want the bank employees to hand me their money in order not to get shot by me".
It would have been an important point for Republicans because it could show that Trump didn't make that call in response to democrats starting an investigation... But it has since been revealed that he knew about the whistle blower rapport 'earlier'.
I was also familiar with the context. Trump didn't so much say "I want no qui pro quo" but "I don't want a quid pro quo... I just want to do the ukranians to do the right thing".
Which is like saying "I don't want to commit a crime... I just want the bank employees to hand me their money in order not to get shot by me".
I'm not asserting that Sondland did it on purpose, I can't prove that. But it is curious that Castor began to assert it was definitively sept 9 in his questioning of Sondland despite Sondland continuing to give disclaim I can't recall the date exactly. The republicans were likely aware of how this call could be used to assist in incriminating trump and wanted to get in front of it by reframing to dissociate the correct context of when the call occurred. Without me copy/pasting large swaths of the article (which I admit takes approx 10min to read so there is a time investment required) context of what the date of the call can be applied is entirely different and torpedoes Trump's paper defense surrounding the call. It switches from a weak defense to an incriminating piece of evidence. I'll reread and try to excerpt a few more pieces if desired but its really best to read it in its entirety. (I'm not sure if you personally have read it, but I'm trying to speak generally to anyone on this thread).I... Honestly don't see much relevance in a mix up dates (all me whom I called 2 months ago and I could easily be wrong two days as well).
It would have been an important point for Republicans because it could show that Trump didn't make that call in response to democrats starting an investigation... But it has since been revealed that he knew about the whistle blower rapport 'earlier'.
I was also familiar with the context. Trump didn't so much say "I want no qui pro quo" but "I don't want a quid pro quo... I just want to do the ukranians to do the right thing".
Which is like saying "I don't want to commit a crime... I just want the bank employees to hand me their money in order not to get shot by me".
---
Because in reality, as shown from the testimony of other witnesses, the “no quid pro quo” call did not take place on September 9th. What’s more, the call was not prompted by any text from Bill Taylor. And lastly, Sondland’s testimony about the “no quid pro quo” call omitted the most important part: the part where President Trump informed Sondland that the security assistance would be at a “stalemate” until President Zelenskyy stood in front of a microphone and personally announced that he was opening an investigation into Trump’s political rivals.
---
I admit I may not of given a summary in my first post but this excerpt from the article attempts to show the significance in the timing (before the only thing democrats were saying in giving context of the call is The whistleblower blew the whistle already). I argue the whistleblower is minimally important to the aid getting released. He/She may have started the snowball effect but the 'avalanche' which Trump responded to was the commencement of a congressional investigation to determine what is going on with the aid on sept 9th. He released the aid within two days of that specific event.
Because in reality, as shown from the testimony of other witnesses, the “no quid pro quo” call did not take place on September 9th. What’s more, the call was not prompted by any text from Bill Taylor. And lastly, Sondland’s testimony about the “no quid pro quo” call omitted the most important part: the part where President Trump informed Sondland that the security assistance would be at a “stalemate” until President Zelenskyy stood in front of a microphone and personally announced that he was opening an investigation into Trump’s political rivals.
---
I admit I may not of given a summary in my first post but this excerpt from the article attempts to show the significance in the timing (before the only thing democrats were saying in giving context of the call is The whistleblower blew the whistle already). I argue the whistleblower is minimally important to the aid getting released. He/She may have started the snowball effect but the 'avalanche' which Trump responded to was the commencement of a congressional investigation to determine what is going on with the aid on sept 9th. He released the aid within two days of that specific event.
There's nothing illegal with Trump withholding aid from Ukraine based on certain factors that don't include quid pro joe. Unless the Libtards can prove that Trump without aid for getting dirt on Biden they have no case. Withholding aid or "quid pro quo" for other reasons is perfectly legal. So yeah, there could be quid pro quo, but no proof of it was in anything that's been disclosed or testified yet. Assumptions aren't facts - assumptions don't shape reality. Even if Trump did withhold aid for "reasons" if those reasons weren't related to going after Biden, who remember, isn't even his fucking opponent, then good. It's how it should be, but there's no "quid pro joe" over Biden. That's the charge. Stick with what the Democrats are charging Trump of. Try to stay on topic. Seeings as the Libtards can't even figure out what they're accusing Trump of and there's no proof the aid was withheld over Biden you lost. Pack up and go home.
I'm going to fucking enjoy watching you backstabbing cowards try to play all of your hatred off when YOU LOSE AND TRUMP IS STILL IN OFFICE AND IS NOT IMPEACHED. You'll still deny you lost. Just like you attack him for every single thing he does. You're not fooling anyone. Pathetic losers. You lost in 2016. Why not accept this and work for the common good? Instead you plan impeachments and use the FBI to go after Trump based on conspiracy theories. Our President is a Russian agent? ROFL ... I wonder if there's a Liberal "gene" and if we can cleanse the world of it.
Trump will never win the primary.
Trump will never beat Hillary.
The Electoral College will never certify Trump.
The House will never certify Trump.
Trump will never get inaugurated.
The world economy will collapse if Trump is elected.
Trump will never last through 2017.
Trump will never get Gorsuch confirmed.
Trump will never last through 2018.
Trump will never get Kavanaugh confirmed.
Trump will never survive the Mueller investigation.
Trump will never last through 2019.
Trump will never beat the impeachment.
1 out of 13? Anyone want to bet with those odds?
Everything that liberals touch begins to corrode.
Last edited by cots,
PHASE 2
(epic failure in the making)
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes told Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro Saturday, that phase two of the impeachment hearings will start this week with Chairman Jerrold Nadler who will deliberate on the constitutionality of impeachment.
Devin Nunes, on Justice with Judge Jeanine.
“Jerry Nadler has been in the witness protection program for several months after he botched the (Robert) Mueller probe. We’re going to see how this goes supposedly they’re going to talk about the constitutionality of impeachment,” said Nunes.
So far the Democrats have not been able to show any evidence that President Donald Trump withheld any aid from Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. In fact, Office of Management and Budget Mark Sandy told lawmakers during Schiff’s hearing that the only reason the money was held up for a short period of time was Trump’s concern that other “countries were not contributing more to Ukraine.
The controversy surrounds questionable actions around Hunter Biden’s paid position on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. His firm Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, “received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia,” according to reports.
No Evidence For Trump Impeachment
Nunes added, “during the (President Richard) Nixon impeachment hearings you had an actual break in – you knew what the crime was. During the (President Bill) Clinton impeachment you knew that he had lied to a grand jury. I think for two weeks one of the things we were able to expose is that not only did they not have a quid pro quo, they actually had to change quid pro quo to bribery until John Ratcliff had to pointed out that the only person ever accused of bribery in Adam Schiff’s star basement down in the capital is Hunter Biden.”
(epic failure in the making)
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes told Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro Saturday, that phase two of the impeachment hearings will start this week with Chairman Jerrold Nadler who will deliberate on the constitutionality of impeachment.
Devin Nunes, on Justice with Judge Jeanine.
“Jerry Nadler has been in the witness protection program for several months after he botched the (Robert) Mueller probe. We’re going to see how this goes supposedly they’re going to talk about the constitutionality of impeachment,” said Nunes.
So far the Democrats have not been able to show any evidence that President Donald Trump withheld any aid from Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. In fact, Office of Management and Budget Mark Sandy told lawmakers during Schiff’s hearing that the only reason the money was held up for a short period of time was Trump’s concern that other “countries were not contributing more to Ukraine.
The controversy surrounds questionable actions around Hunter Biden’s paid position on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. His firm Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, “received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia,” according to reports.
No Evidence For Trump Impeachment
Nunes added, “during the (President Richard) Nixon impeachment hearings you had an actual break in – you knew what the crime was. During the (President Bill) Clinton impeachment you knew that he had lied to a grand jury. I think for two weeks one of the things we were able to expose is that not only did they not have a quid pro quo, they actually had to change quid pro quo to bribery until John Ratcliff had to pointed out that the only person ever accused of bribery in Adam Schiff’s star basement down in the capital is Hunter Biden.”
Last edited by cots,
It's not within Trumps power to withhold aid. The problem is he's over stepping his bounds as president. The are certain legal code guidelines for how to do this, getting more people involved so that presidents don't have too much power and abuse that power. It has to go through a process before its decided to withhold aid. Trump is not honoring the laws he vowed to withhold and not respecting what our founding fathers and us the people that make these laws. That is not a very patriotic thing to do and its basically giving kings power to a country that's suppose limit power of a single person, and all of us are suppose to be the ones involved in the decision making process.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
-
BakerMan
The snack that smiles back, Ballsack! -
K3Nv2
-
The Real Jdbye
*is birb*
-
-
@
K3Nv2:
I'd like to see a DS emulator that allows casting top screen to TV then use bottom for the touch screen stuff+1
-
-
-
@ HiradeGirl:
@K3Nv2 I did that using Citra for 3DS games. Bottom screen was my smartphone. Until I got the touch screen. -
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Ken I have that sort of set up on Drastic on Pi for games that don't require touch -
-
-
Any TV with your PC connected with Citra and any smartphone to use as a screen using a free play store app.+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
